Steyn et al. versus Mann

by Judith Curry

Some significant developments in various lawsuits involving Michael Mann

Steyn versus Mann

Mark Steyn has just filed to countersue Michael Mann for $20M. Excerpts:

130. Plaintiff [Mann] has engaged in a pattern of abusive litigation designed to chill freedom of speech and to stifle legitimate criticism of Plaintiff’s work. He is currently suing Dr Tim Ball in British Columbia over a hoary bit of word play (“should be in the state pen, not Penn State”) applied to innumerable Pennsylvanians over the years. Having initiated the suit, Dr Mann then stalled the discovery process, so that the BC suit is now entering its third year – Mann’s object being to use the process as a punishment, rather than any eventual trial and conviction. See Mann vs Ball et al, British Columbia VLC-S-S-111913 (2011) (exhibit attached).

131.At the other end of the spectrum, Plaintiff and his Counsel have issued demands that have no basis in law, as they well know – including the preposterous assertion, in response to a parody video by “Minnesotans for Global Warming”, that “Professor Mann’s likeness” is protected from parody and satire…There is a smell to the hockey stick that, in Lady Macbeth’s words, “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” – nor all the investigations. And so Dr  Mann has determined to sue it into respectability.

132. At the same time, Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its respectability – by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia…

133. As with his previous legal threats and actions, Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit for the purpose of wrongfully interfering with critics’ statutorily protected right of advocacy on an issue of great public interest and constitutionally protected free-speech rights.

134.Plaintiff’s lawsuit was designed to have and has had the effect of inhibiting legitimate debate on the issues and public policy surrounding the theories expounded by Plaintiff and others and of restricting the free flow of ideas concerning the merits of those theories…

137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change taints and skews the democratic process and distorts the resulting governmental public policy response to alleged global warming.

138. Plaintiff’s lawsuit has damaged Defendant Steyn by interfering with his right to express opinions on controversial matters and causing him to expend time, money and effort in having to respond to this lawsuit.

140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

142. Plaintiff’s wrongful interference with Defendant Steyn’s constitutionally protected rights of free speech and public expression and his engagement and use of the courts as an instrument of the government to carry out that wrongful interference violates the First Amendment and constitutes a constitutional tort for which Defendant Steyn is entitled to be compensated.

Steyn discusses this in a post The New Tribalism.

Mann/ U. Virginia emails

The Yale Climate Media forum has a very good post titled Strange bedfellows and fear of broad impacts of Mann/UVa court ruling.  Excerpts:

Pitting the interests of academic freedom against transparency, media access, and freedom of information, a high-profile case before the Virginia Supreme Court involving climate scientist Michael Mann is expected to be decided over the next few weeks.

If it all feels like legal deja-vu, that’s because it is — though this particular case has come with a twist, as new, broader issues of information access are at stake. On the surface it looks like a kind of redux of the suit launched by then-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. But because of different legal issues, it has ended up bringing together strange allies, banding together media groups with the libertarian think tank.

The key issue in the pending case over the quest for Mann’s e-mails involves the extent of Virginia’s state freedom of information laws, which ATI is using to request Mann’s documents. That issue has galvanized a coalition of 18 heavyweight press groups — including the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Associated Press, Reuters, NPR, Dow Jones, Politico, The Washington Post and others — who somewhat quietly penned a friend-of-the-court or “amicus” brief favoring disclosure of this type of e-mail.

Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences and a number of large higher education associations and other academic interests are supporting Mann’s position with their own legal brief. Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has written about relevant background for the scientific community. “The court clearly understood the potential consequences of the actions it is being asked to take,” Halpern wrote after attending the Virginia Supreme Court’s January 2014 hearing, “with multiple justices talking about how the interpretive standard they set will apply not just to this case but to tens of thousands of cases.”

Peter J. Fontaine, Mann’s attorney, told The Yale Forum in an e-mail that he believes the press groups are “flat wrong” in taking the side of what he called an “industry shill” in this case:

The correspondence of public university faculty should not be open to anyone who wants to read it. Nor should the cost of reviewing, producing and/or redacting such correspondence fall on the public university. A contrary ruling on either point would do unique damage to America’s public universities. Failure to protect the interests of public universities and their faculty to be free to research controversial or divisive topics and to exchange and express thoughts and ideas in a zone of privacy, without fear of embarrassment by public disclosure, will damage an essential quality of American public universities.

“Academics must feel comfortable sharing research,” the Post’s board wrote then, “disagreeing with colleagues and proposing conclusions — not all of which will be correct — without fear that those who dislike their findings will conduct invasive fishing expeditions in search of a pretext to discredit them.”

Finding that appropriate “balance” between the important principles of academic freedom and media access to information — rights seemingly here in conflict — remains the Holy Grail for those deeply committed to both principles. Whether the Virginia Supreme Court can thread that needle remains to be seen.

McIntyre’s Audit

Steve McIntyre is auditing Mann’s libel case.  He has 3 recent posts:

BishopHill sums up the most significant bits:

Steve McIntyre’s latest post at Climate Audit includes the extraordinary revelation that Michael Mann’s latest submission to the courts regarding his libel suit includes a doctored quote. The offending words purport to be an excerpt from the Russell inquiry report, but, demonstrating a startling disregard for the court, the excerpt has been altered to make it look as if Mann had been exonerated by Russell. However, this has been done so badly as to make the alteration fairly obvious.

Shub identifies the source of the ‘rigor and honesty’ quote as a post from Skeptical Science.

Mark Steyn reacts in a post Rigor mortis, excerpts:

Mann and his lawyers doctored a quote and put their own version of it in direct quotation marks. That’s bad enough. But they did it for a specific reason. Because the original makes clear that Sir Muir’s findings apply only to the “CRU scientists” – that’s to say, employees of the University of East Anglia, who are the only people the Russell panel was charged with investigating, and were therefore the only people it was in a position to exonerate. So, as evidence of Michael Mann’s “exoneration”, the best his lawyers can come up with is a fake quote from a report exonerating some people he happens to be acquainted with.

Dr Mann has played fast and loose with details all his professional life, starting from his original “innocent” errors on the hockey stick to his “innocent” promotion of himself as a Nobel Prize winner to his “innocent” misrepresentations of these investigations in his current legal complaint. All these “innocent” mistakes should put to rest at least one thing. It will be for a jury to decide whether he is merely careless or fraudulent, but rigour, or rigor, or any other spelling thereof, is something he knows not.

To take the other university at the center of the Climategate controversy, the University of East Anglia’s investigationwas also something of a dodge, but they at least understood the question of “conflict of interest”. So they asked an outsider, Lord Oxburgh, to chair the investigation, and he in turn presided over an all-outsider panel from Cambridge, London, Zurich and MIT. Penn State, under its corrupt president (now under criminal indictment), appointed a colleague of Dr Mann’s to investigate Dr Mann. And it all worked out swimmingly.

Meanwhile, Michael Mann is on the case, with this tweet:

Wondering about the credibility of #climatechange #denial attack dog #StephenMcIntyre? @DeepClimate‘s got the goods: http://deepclimate.org/?s=McIntyre 

Sue JC, sue!

Robert Tracinski has a post entitled Free Speech for Mann, but not for thee. Excerpts:

Mann’s goal is to make it a legally punishable offense to question a scientist’s honesty or even his thinking method.

If you are criticizing Professor Mann, that is. But if he is criticizing you—well, then, that’s a different story.

Mann, it turns out, routinely criticizes his own opponents in the harshest terms. And not just journalists like Steyn. Take Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at the Georgia Institute of Technology. 

Indeed, Mann’s recent New York Times op-ed begins with a blanket defamation of anyone who has ever questioned his global warming orthodoxy, people he describes as a “a fringe minority” which “clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science,” promoting a “virulent strain of anti-science.”

So basically, Mann wants a legal guarantee that he can dish it out, but he doesn’t have to take it. What a jerk.

To Judith Curry’s credit, she is not eager to sue.

Many people have urged me to sue Mann; I can’t be bothered and I don’t have money to throw away on such stuff…. Further, I would like to stand up for Michael Mann’s right to make insulting and defamatory tweets, statements in op-eds, etc. As an American, I am pretty attached to the right to free speech.

I appreciate that attitude—but I’m wondering whether filing suit might actually accomplish a great deal more for the cause of free speech. Maybe what we need is precisely Curry vs. Mann.

Think about what Curry vs. Mann would accomplish. As Curry admits, “I have at least as good a case against Michael Mann for defamation as he has against Steyn.” So this would put Mann is a bind: if he wins against Steyn, he establishes a precedent for his own loss to Curry. If no one can criticize him under the Bill Murray rule—”Back off, man, I’m a scientist”—then he can’t criticize others.

Now, I know that Curry doesn’t want to win against Mann. She doesn’t want to set the precedent that thin-skinned scientists can run around bullying their critics. So she should sue with the goal of making a settlement: that she will drop Curry vs. Mann—if he drops Mann vs. Steyn. It’s a kind of mutually assured destruction for censorship.

Whether she can be prevailed upon or not, Professor Curry’s case highlights the importance of this battle and the need to make sure that free speech is not just for members of the global warming establishment, but also for the rest of us.

Funding for these lawsuits?

What I would like to know is where is the funding coming from for these lawsuits?

Steyn is trying crowdfunding, would be interesting to see how he is doing.

Regarding Mann’s funding, WUWT reports:

Also, for those who don’t know, we’ve heard that Dr. Mann’s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we’ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn’t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet.

From the Wikipedia:  CSLD is funded entirely through private donations. As of January 2011, CSLD has received $25,000 in donations.

Hmm . . .  I wonder how deep the pockets are that are supporting Mann.  $10M deep?

In any event, seems like the lawyers stand to be substantially enriched.

Penn State’s new President

Penn State University has just announced their new President – Eric Barron.  Barron is currently President at Florida State University; my colleagues and friends there tell me that Barron is well liked and has been doing a good job.  The interesting angle is this.   From his FSU biosketch:

Prior to assuming the Florida State presidency, he served as director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. From 2006 to 2008, he was dean of the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin. At Pennsylvania State University, he was professor of geosciences, director of the Earth System Science Center, director of the EMS Environmental Institute and dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

Here is an interesting interview of Barron while he was director of NCAR, on climate modeling.  I tried to find any congressional testimony on climate change, I spotted one in 2001 [link].   As far as I can tell, Barron has not been very visible in the public or scientific debate on climate change over the past decade.

The relevance to Michael Mann’s situation is that Penn State’s new President started his career at Penn State in the same position Mann now holds:  Director of the Earth System Science Center.  Hard to imagine that Barron won’t take an interest in lawsuits involving Mann.

JC reflections

All this is becoming quite the soap opera.  Apart from the entertainment being provided for the climate blogosphere, there are three really important issues at stake here:

  • freedom of speech
  • academic freedom
  • media access to information

I come down stalwartly on the side freedom of speech and media access to information.

The academic freedom issue is murkier. Academic freedom, as per the Wikipedia:

Academic freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment. Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. 

With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this:  no scientist should have to fall on their sword  to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus.  I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator.  That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.

Tenure is an amazing privilege for academics. And now we see in the Mann/UVa case, that the establishment academics are worried about  fear of embarrassment by public disclosure and fear that those who dislike their findings will conduct invasive fishing expeditions in search of a pretext to discredit them.  Come on, big boy pants please.  We are talking about publicly funded research, and a primary concern is supposed to be avoiding embarrassing the scientists?

For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom.  Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own.   Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails.   All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.

The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior.  Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.

1,142 responses to “Steyn et al. versus Mann

  1. Fabulous – and important – overview. Three cheers to you, Dr Curry!

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Joshua, you long winded post doesn’t go to what in your nonsense post was interesting.

      “Yes, the accuracy of the statement in Mann’s filing stands on it’s own. But it seems to me that far more relevant is the veracity of the statement as opposed to speculation about the source.”

      The QUESTION of accuracy in Mann’s presentation of the quote to the court, Joshua, yes – and Mann’s statement FALLS on it’s own. It’s not accurate, it’s misleading and as given for evidence about Mann’s supposed exonerations, is completely false.

      GIven that, then it is interesting to find out where it came from…and we find out that Mann knows, as he posted on realclimate that it refers to the CRU scientists, not him.

    • David Springer

      Regarding Mann:

      Live by the sword, die by the sword.

      Hoist upon his own petard.

      A taste of his own medicine.

    • David L. Hagen

      Steve McIntyre’s next post: More SKS in the Mann Pleadings
      He quotes the Commons Committee:

      However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided.

    • David L. Hagen

      Re

      there are three really important issues at stake here:
      freedom of speech
      academic freedom
      media access to information

      Freedom of speech, religion and petition are primary “unalienable” “Rights” “endowed” by our “Creator” as documented in the Declaration of Independence 1776.
      They were upheld through the Trial of the Seven Bishops who were imprisoned for libel over their petition to the King appealing to their rights to petition under Magna Carta for freedom of speech and religion.
      These were further codified in the (English) Bill of Rights (1689) and thence into the US Constitution, Amendment I.
      Academic freedom is but a derivative of the freedom of speech that is tempered by the rights of We the People to openness and transparency by funding academic research.

    • This past 40 years’ of climate science will in future be identified as a repeat of the Phlogiston debate of the 18th Century, That was promoted by Joseph Priestley, a religious fanatic who despite being a good scientist, used it to get funding from the elite. They had been educated in the classics so by creating the idea of a 5th Greek Humour Priestley was able to con them out of funds.

      When Antoine Lavoisier proved using his new precision chemical balance that metals when heated in air gained mass, the Phlogiston camp tried to maintain dominance by claiming Phlogiston had negative mass.

      This last scam has recently been mimicked by ‘Missing Heat’; ‘Trenberth’s Demon’ magickally transporting hotter water molecules from the sea surface > 2 km deep where it cannot be measured. That process does not exist but presumably its adherents imagine it will con the funders a bit longer.

      As for our new Phlogiston, it is the claim by Climate Alchemy that the Earth emits net real IR energy as if an isolated black body emitter in a vacuum in radiative equilibrium with a sink at absolute zero. No professional scientist or engineer can accepts this ‘perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind’.

      It originated from Meteorology which misinterprets the Radiation Field output from pyrgeometers for a real energy flux when it is really a potential energy flow. Physicist John Houghton, another strongly religious individual apparently driven to warn mankind of CAGW, knew that difference because in his monograph he specifically stated there is no Radiation Field at ToA towards the surface via the assumed grey body atmosphere.

      However, to offset the imaginary 333 W.m^2 ‘back radiation’ input, Climate Alchemists assumes Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation can be used at ToA. That is impossible for the real IR semi-transparent atmosphere. They then use double real low level cloud optical depth in hind-casting to fit to real past temperatures. This plus 33 K GHE is used to ‘prove’ positive feedback when real CO2 climate sensitivity is near zero and the real present GHE is ~11K.

      Houghton set up the IPCC on the basis of this ‘Phlogiston replacement’. It stays alive because Obama has spent over $70 billion pushing it. The scientific method has failed to correct it because most scientists are incapable of working from first principles, whence it falls apart. Experiment is showing it is wrong; ‘Missing Heat’ is the last, desperate throw of the die.

      • David Springer

        “No professional scientist or engineer can accepts this ‘perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind’.”

        No true Scotsman fallacy. Crawl back to principia non-scientific with the rest of the sky dragon slayers. You people are SO easy to spot.

    • David L. Hagen

      AlecM
      Science is founded on objective observations and testable models.
      Down radiation is quantitatively measurable.
      See Roy Spencer showing that with simple experiments.
      Don’t repeat predictions on authority. Be a scientist.
      Repeat those measurements and compare them against the models.
      Otherwise don’t waste bandwidth.

    • @David Springer:: PSI asked me to join but I did not because they are wrong in part. I repeat my statement: no professional scientist or engineer can accept the ‘back radiation’ argument in the ‘K-T Energy Budget’.

      It’s easy to prove this. Look up Goody and Yung ‘Atmospheric Physics’ and the conservation of energy between the material and EM worlds is given by qdot = -Div Fv. qdot is the monochromatic rate of heat transfer per unit volume of matter and Fv is the monochromatic radiative flux density.

      An alternative approach is to consider it as Poynting Vectors, which add vectorally at a point or plane.

      Integrate this over all wavelengths and the average heating rate at a plane is the difference between two opposing Radiation Fields. Climate Alchemy imagines the surface emits as IR the sum of ‘back radiation’ reversing on itself and net surface IR, the surface Radiation Field.

      A Radiation Field is not a real energy flux, but the potential flux to a sink at absolute zero.. Therefore, Climate Alchemy is based on a ‘perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind’. Any professional with an education in standard physics will come to the same conclusion, e.g. arXiv:0707.1161v2 [physics.ao-ph] 26 Jul 2007

      Unfortunately, Meteorologists and Climate people are taught incorrect physics. Now that the World has entered a substantial cooling phase, the claim of yet more fake physics to pretend the initial work is correct is untenable.

      • David Springer

        Dear little AlecM

        You repeat the no true Scotsman fallacy. Tell me, did you poll every professional scientist and engineer before you make the assertion that none of them accept back-radiation?

        All matter radiates. Are molecules in the atmosphere ‘matter’? Are they somehow conditioned to radiate in only one direction? How come I can point an IR thermometer at the sky and get a reading that changes with the temperature of the atmosphere? When a cloud is overhead the reading gets much warmer than with clear sky? How does that work, exactly if nothing in the atmosphere is radiating downward?

        And my last question, how are you able to tie your shoes given how utterly boneheaded you are?

    • @David l Hagen: Spencer is also confused as to ”back radiation’ physics. His IR thermometer is essentially the same physics as a pyrgeometer, a sensor with a thermopile which is calibrated against a black body cavity emitter assuming a fixed emissivity. A pyrgeometer converts the temperature to the Radiation Field. This is what Spencer wrote:

      “What was amazing was that driving down in elevation from my house caused the sky temperature reading to increase by about 3 deg. F for a 300 foot drop in elevation. My car thermometer was showing virtually no change. This pattern was repeated as I went up and down hills.”

      So, the ‘sky temperature’ varied but the air temperature did not. This was because humidity falls with altitude, hence the Radiation Field of the atmosphere also falls with altitude. The real net surface IR flux is the difference of the Radiation Fields at that plane.

      What Meteorologists failed to understand is that the reason why surface temperature increases when clouds come over is because the sink temperature for surface IR in the atmospheric window, most of the net IR emission, increases from 2.7 deg K cosmic microwave background to c. 283 deg K for the cloud base! The reduced IR loss means the surface temperature has to rise to maintain constant IR plus convection.

      Check this coupled convection and radiation another way, using a beach windbreak! I assure you that as a process engineer who made a good living measuring, modelling and using heat transfer in very large process plant where you had to get it right, i know the real science. The failure to understand what a pyrgeometer really outputs is the biggest ever scientific instrument cock up in history.

      I suggest every Climate Alchemist read Ch 3 of ‘Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook’, the chapter on heat transfer co–written by Hoyt C Hottel who first measured GHG mixture emissivities. if this is done by sufficient people, there is a chance that the subject can become a science instead of a pseudo-science.

    • David L. Hagen

      AlecM
      Re:

      the sink temperature for surface IR in the atmospheric window, most of the net IR emission, increases from 2.7 deg K cosmic microwave background to c. 283 deg K for the cloud base!

      You just affirmed Spencer’s basic argument.
      Now WHY is the cloud base at 283 K?
      Combine that with absorption / radiation is equal in all directions for a gas molecule.
      (PS In SI write 283 K, not 283 deg K.)

    • @David Springer II: I’m sorry, but it’s clear I’m working against someone taught incorrect physics.

      A Radiation Field is a potential energy flux to a sink at 0 deg. K, not a real flux. You calculate net IR flux as the difference, corrected for emissivity and geometry, of two or more RFs. In the case of the Earth’s surface – atmosphere combination, at equal temperatures the surface emits net IR energy to the atmosphere set by the difference of emissivities. The atmospheric emissivity is about o.6 at 16 deg C: the self-absorbed GHG bands exactly annihilate same wavelength surface IR, with some residual emission in the non self-absorbed bands.

      That’s right, there is zero net emission in the 15 micron CO2 band and most H2O bands. Yet if you point an optical pyrometer at the surface or the atmosphere, it measures the isolated body RF. This is because the back of the pyrometer is shielded.

      So, for 16 deg C. MODTRAN calculates the maximum net surface radiative flux to the atmosphere is about (1-0.6) = 0,4 of a black body, the operational emissivity to us engineers, c. 160 W/m^2. This is the 160 W/m^2 solar SW thermalised at the surface. However, the K-T energy budget gives a mean 63 W/m^2 net surface IR which is about 16% of a black body, reduction by a further factor of 60%, the rest of the energy flux being convection and evapo-transpiration. That means 60% of the activated surface sites transfer energy to adsorbed molecules or liquid water, not EM energy to the aether.

      Of this 63 W/m^2, 23 W/m^2 is absorbed by GHGs but none can be thermalised in the gas phase, subject for discussion at another time – Tyndall’s experiment has been badly misinterpreted!. Until Climate Alchemists understand that an optical pyrometer measures the isolated body RF in its viewing angle, not a real net IR energy flow, there is no hope of any of the models being able to predict future climate.

      No scientist who understands Maxwell’s Equations accepts the ‘back radiation’ idea. if they don’t understand this physics, they are incapable of coming to any conclusion. I suspect this is 97% of all climate scientists

      I have already explained why an IR thermometer measures the RF and converts that to temperature assuming a given emissivity.

    • @David L Hagen.

      The cloud base is at 283 deg K because that is what is set by lapse rate at that altitude.

      The SI unit of absolute temperature is degrees K. The SI unit of temperature difference is K, on its own.

      I have not confirmed Spencer’s argument – he is measuring the RF and because of the difference of emissivities cloud to calibration, the temperature is wrong unless you recalibrate the thermometer. This is why pyrgeometers don’t even measure the RF correctly.

      When you measure a RF, this is nothing directly to do with IR emission in any direction – it is the RF, solely a function of temperature and the wavelength-dependent emissivity. IR flux is set by the difference of RFs, correcting for geometry.

      We engineers have to get the sums right. Climate Alchemists get them wrong all the time!

    • *** UPDATE ***

      Wow! To the relief of anyone who may have been concerned for the legal defense of free speech when Mark Steyn dismissed his former legal representation, he has announced a potent team of some of the most accomplished free-speech attorneys alive today (lawyers who have not only won big free speech and publication cases, but who have also influenced major state and national legislation on these topics):

      Mark Steyn announces “Dream Team” of legal experts

      Just wait until discovery gets going, or will Mann abandon the case before he has to pull back the curtain? Sounds like Steyn is staying in an all-out no concessions, no settlement, take-no-prisoners mode.

      Michael Mann is not going to know what hit him….. something like a thundering freight train of legal, cultural, scientific, and personal criticism. The defense of freedom of expression is in good hands defending against the “libel tourism” of Michael Mann’s obnoxious and offensive SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) lawsuit.

    • Look up ‘Rachel’s Law’.
      =======

  2. Judith -

    I thought you might like to read this (h/t willard):

    Muir Russell nonetheless proclaimed in his press conference that, while CRU was “unhelpful” at times, the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists in question was “not in doubt”.

    From Stevie Mac’s very own keyboard. From December, 2011:
    Interesting, eh?

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/27/climategate-2-and-the-foia-mole-incident/

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Joshua, what does mentioning what the Muir Russell reported, say?
      It says McIntyre reported the results.
      It’s not as if he endorsed the finding, as you seem to be implying.
      You must be totally empty of reason.

    • Steve McIntyre

      Joshua, what’s your point? No one, least of all me, has contested that Muir Russell purported to exonerate “CRU scientists”. The issue in discussion is the false claim in Mann’s pleadings that the Muir Russell inquiry “exonerated” Mann himself on wide-ranging counts. Please note that Mann and his lawyers made similar false claims about other inquiries, as I’ve already shown with the Oxburgh inquiry and will show with others.

      Nor should this statement be taken as endorsement of Muir Russell in respect to the CRU scientists. Muir Russell failed to even ask Jones or Briffa about their destruction of emails because Muir Russell said that that would have been asking them to confess to a criminal act. I’ve discussed defects of the Muir Russell inquiry at length at Climate Audit.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Comment on Climate Audit by Bengt Abelsson

      ” The Muir Russel did not exonerate the CRU, nor anybody else.

      8. The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted. It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work. Such an outcome could only come through the normal processes of scientific debate and not from the examination of e-mails or from a series of interviews about conduct.

      13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

      If MR should examine an used car:

      8. The Review examines the engine, gear box and wheels with which the vehicle is equipped. ….

      13. Vehicles are matters of such global importance, that the highest standards of engines, gear boxes and wheels are needed in their function. On the specific allegations made against the function of CARU vehicle, we find that the function of the gear box and engine are not in doubt.

      Note that leaves a lot of doubt for the wheels. Anybody game to buy that car?”

    • Why is this “interesting”?

      The quoted portions are words accurately cited from the documents. The words “of the scientists in question was” properly paraphrase the concept that the cites apply to the CRU scientists. There is no representation that the latter phrase is part of a direct quote – just the opposite because they are excluded from the quotes.

    • It’s interesting given all the speculation about the “source.”

      As to whether the quotation of the report was accurate, or whether the characterization in the report references Mann or the CRU scientists – those questions stand on their own.

    • Joshua…

      You know I’ve often wondered if you’re a socialist (perhaps practicing taqiyya) trying to protect “global warming” as a stalking horse for your own (probably socialist) agenda.

      But now I’m wondering if you’re really a “skeptic” flying under false colors, trying to make the alarmist position look bad by using obviously ridiculous arguments.

      OTOH, as Napoleon (IIRC) once suggested, one should never blame human malice for that which could be explained by human stupidity.

      OT3H, your tactic here has extreme similarities (to my eyes) to those of Mann, using quotes out of context to support a position they don’t support when looked closely at.

      OT4H, Mann used such tactics (along with actual misquotes if “Stevie Mac’s” referenced posts are correct) in an actual court filing, while you just used them in a stupid blog post. IANAL, but if I were the judge in the case I would certainly want to hand his lawyers jail terms for contempt of court, along with fines big enough to bankrupt them and their whole firms.

      All very interesting. It’s too bad somebody doesn’t have time to “audit” the likes of you, Willard, etc.

    • AK -

      You know I’ve often wondered if you’re a socialist (perhaps practicing taqiyya) trying to protect “global warming” as a stalking horse for your own (probably socialist) agenda.

      As far as I’m concerned, Mann is part of the problem here, not a part of the solution. I have never tried to “protect” him in any way.’

      I view the problem as multi-faceted,however, and the tribalism from other parties is one of the facets. I am interested in the motiva… reaso…. on both sides, but I find it particularly fascinating when it is manifest among self-described “skeptics.”

      The notion of “protecting global warming” seems nonsensical to me. The globe either has warmed or it hasn’t, it either will do so in the future or it won’t. Nothing that I can ever do will ever come anywhere close to affecting those outcomes.

      • @Joshua…

        More obfuscation. I didn’t suggest you were protecting Mann or global warming (whatever that is). I suggested you were trying to protect global warming, in “scare quotes”. IMO it should be clear in context that I’m talking about the meme used to justify political action, not the actual behavior of the planet (whatever that is).

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Joshua , lamely, sez”

      “It’s interesting given all the speculation about the “source.”

      In what way is it interesting given the speculation, Joshua? :)

      Joshua sez:

      “As to whether the quotation of the report was accurate, or whether the characterization in the report references Mann or the CRU scientists – those questions stand on their own.”

      They questions of where Mann sourced the manufactured quote or if he manufactured it himself do stand by themselves.

      However, you are failing to explain the supposed significance of your nonsense post.


    • Steve McIntyre | February 23, 2014 at 9:02 am |

      Joshua, what’s your point?

      Steve M,
      No one takes a physics-ignorant pundit such as yourself very seriously. That’s the real point.

    • AK -

      More obfuscation. I didn’t suggest you were protecting Mann or global warming (whatever that is). I suggested you were trying to protect “global warming“, in “scare quotes”. IMO it should be clear in context that I’m talking about the meme used to justify political action, not the actual behavior of the planet (whatever that is).

      First, nothing that I can do could protect “global warming.” I can’t “protect” a meme.

      Second, even if I I could, it couldn’t conceivably be by writing blog posts.

      So I have no reason for “trying” to protect “global warming,” scare quotes or not.

    • Web,

      That’s unfair.

      Steve takes himself very very seriously (besdies, pensioners and retirees need a hobby).

    • Yeah, Steve Mc takes his racquetball trophies very seriously.

    • tintgt -

      In what way is it interesting given the speculation, Joshua? :)

      I think that the energy and focus of speculation about the source (and interest speculating that the source is the devil’s spawn itself, SkS) well-represents the tribalism that I find to be interesting about the climate ward.

      I see that Barry has offered a few other potential “sources” – for example, from a RealClimate statement (written by Mann himself – with an acknowledgement that the “rigor” and “honesty” were referencing CRU?)

      Yes, the accuracy of the statement in Mann’s filing stands on it’s own. But it seems to me that far more relevant is the veracity of the statement as opposed to speculation about the source.

      IMO, it’s like the hubub about the source is like hubub about the case itself. Much teeth-gnashing, hand-wringing, drama-queening, and pearl-clutching from fainting couches where folks on both sides are convinced that if their side loses the case, free speech as we know it will come to an end.

      IMO, outside of the world of climate change fanaticism, life will go on and no one will skip a beat after the case is decided. The climate wars will continue unabated. “Winners” will feel vindicated in their sense of being victims, and “losers” will likewise see the loss as just further victimization. Same ol’ same ol.’

    • Another spectacular own goal for our beloved Joshua..

      You’re so anxious to score points Josh, that you can’t be bothered to understand the issues at hand. I can guarantee you’d do a more effective job if you took the time to digest what you’re commenting on before…you know..commenting.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Joshua, your long winded post doesn’t go to what in your nonsense post was interesting.

      “Yes, the accuracy of the statement in Mann’s filing stands on it’s own. But it seems to me that far more relevant is the veracity of the statement as opposed to speculation about the source.”

      The QUESTION of accuracy in Mann’s presentation of the quote to the court, Joshua, yes – and Mann’s statement FALLS on it’s own. It’s not accurate, it’s misleading and as given for evidence about Mann’s supposed exonerations, is completely false.

      GIven that, then it is interesting to find out where it came from…and we find out that Mann knows, as he posted on realclimate that it refers to the CRU scientists, not him.

    • Yup, I’m convinced, old Josh is a skeptic mole in the AGW camp. No alarmist could write such nonsense as he continuously is doing here. Who needs enemies with friends like Joshua?

    • tingtg -

      .Joshua, your long winded post doesn’t go to what in your nonsense post was interesting.

      So, Stevie Mac knew that the quote in the filing, putatively from the Muir report, was inaccurate in that the original wasn’t in reference to Mann. And he knew this because he had written in 2011 about who was referenced in the report. And so that is important and of direct relevance to the case.

      Then there’s this energy and focus on finding the “source” for the misquote. Stevie Mac devotes a post to the topic, when due “skeptical” diligence would make it clear that it would only result in speculation. Much tribal back-slapping ensues. “Heh, look, it’s the devil’s spawn that was the source of the misquote in the filing.” “Oh wait, no, it isn’t, it’s RealClimate.” “Oh, now, wait…, it’s the WRI….”

      And in the end, you are no closer to knowing the “source” of the misquote in the filing, which, as I said, an outcome that due skeptical diligence would have made obvious.

      I think it’s interesting to see self-described “skeptics” engage in non-skeptical behavior.

    • Joshua like willard does not recognize the difference
      between

      A) a blogger and an officer of the court
      B) a post and a document submitted under the threat of perjury
      C) a professions with no ethical standards and a profession with specific rules
      about misquoting.

      But mommy stevie Mac did it

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Joshua you now say:

      “So, Stevie Mac knew that the quote in the filing, putatively from the Muir report, was inaccurate in that the original wasn’t in reference to Mann. And he knew this because he had written in 2011 about who was referenced in the report. And so that is important and of direct relevance to the case.”

      Joshua, we can assume that anyone could know it was inaccurate, by comparing with the original. That’s the only way to know. You;re not making sense, Josh.

      Then you say

      “Then there’s this energy and focus on finding the “source” for the misquote. Stevie Mac devotes a post to the topic, when due “skeptical” diligence would make it clear that it would only result in speculation.”

      I don’t see that speculation is inherently worthless, Joshua, if that is what your argument is going to rest on.

      “And in the end, you are no closer to knowing the “source” of the misquote in the filing, which, as I said, an outcome that due skeptical diligence would have made obvious.”
      We are no closer to knowing if Mann copied it from somewhere or made it up himself, but in searching we have found that Mann positively knows it’s false!
      :) Further ahead,Joshua!

      “I think it’s interesting to see self-described “skeptics” engage in non-skeptical behavior.”
      Yes, agreed that what you’re trying to do is based on your foolish speculations, Joshua!

    • tintg -

      I don’t see that speculation is inherently worthless, Joshua, if that is what your argument is going to rest on.

      Well, “worth” is a subjective judgement. Some consider tribal backslapping to be very worthwhile. That seems obvious because it is so frequently engaged in.

      We are no closer to knowing if Mann copied it from somewhere or made it up himself,….

      He may have “copied it from somewhere.” He may have “made it up himself.” His lawyer may have “copied it from somewhere.” His lawyer may have “made it up himself.” Or, it may have been a mistake on the part of a lawyer who did not thoroughly research the quote or who misunderstood the report It may have been that he “misremembered” the report. The value of even those improbable explanations rest on speculation, and I would guess that such speculation is of limited legal value (although I’m certainly no legal expert). In the end, what you are left with of value is the information that the filing contained an inaccurate quote of the report (which Stevie Mac knew before his post focusing on the “source”), and yes, tribal backslapping about the source (which you indeed may very well find to be of “value.”).

      but in searching we have found that Mann positively knows it’s false!…

      Well – that is interesting. Relevant to the case? Maybe so, particularly if you could prove that he deliberately approved an inaccurate quotation of the report. But there again, that would almost certainty be speculative. I’m not sure whether that kind of speculation amounts to useful evidence in such a court case.

      In terms of the legal proceedings, seems to me that the speculation about the “source” will be meaningless. The value will be to back-slapping tribalists. In terms of the legal case, and the rest of the world, I would guess it amounts to little other than same ol’ same ol.’ Of course, far be it from me to suggest that you shouldn’t find same ol’ same ol’ to be of value.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Now Joshua says:

      “Well, “worth” is a subjective judgement. Some consider tribal backslapping to be very worthwhile. That seems obvious because it is so frequently engaged in.”

      If it’s not the basis, then you’re still at a loss for explaining what the interesting thing in your first post is. If it is the basis ( you replied to that), you still haven’t responded as to what is interesting in your first post.

      “It may have been that he “misremembered” the report. The value of even those improbable explanations rest on speculation”
      They certainly do. Once the possible answers are fully speculated upon, then following route of actions can be prepared for. If the lawyer was lazy and went by “remembering”, but claimed to the court that it was a quote from the enquiry, then he’s presented a false statement to the court.

      See how that works, Josh?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      and Joshua, for a lawyer to make a false representation to the court is not a thing to be taken lightly.

      if it turns out to be Mann’s representation to the court, then Styen now has the evidence that Mann already knew it to be false – bolstering Steyn’s claims about Mann.

      So the speculations, based on search and finds, provide a map of routes that can be prepared for. They seem to be boxed in already. Niiiiiice.

    • > The issue in discussion is the false claim in Mann’s pleadings that the Muir Russell inquiry “exonerated” Mann himself on wide-ranging counts.

      “The” issue again.

      There are lots of issues discussed.

      Sometimes, it’s Steyn et al. versus Mann in general, as the title of Judy’s editorial indicates.

      Some other times, it’s a “possible source” of a quote.

      And some other times, these issues offer a hook to discuss John Cook’s sexual fantasies:

      As also is well known, Cook posted images in the private SKS archive of himself in Nazi regalia and homoerotic images of several prominent climate skeptics.

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/22/the-source-of-manns-doctored-quote/

      In all these cases, what is not discussed is also of relevance, like the choice of the word “doctored.”

      But Ze issue. Of course, of course.

    • > The issue in discussion is the false claim in Mann’s pleadings that the Muir Russell inquiry “exonerated” Mann himself on wide-ranging counts.

      “The” issue again.

      There are lots of issues discussed.

      Sometimes, it’s Steyn et al. versus Mann in general, as the title of Judy’s editorial indicates.

      Some other times, it’s a “possible source” of a quote.

      And some other times, these issues offer a hook to discuss John Cook’s sexual fantasies:

      As also is well known, Cook posted images in the private SKS archive of himself in [N] regalia and homoerotic images of several prominent climate skeptics.

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/22/the-source-of-manns-doctored-quote/

      In all these cases, what is not discussed is also of relevance, like the choice of the word “doctored.”

      But Ze issue. Of course, of course.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Willard, “doctored” has been discussed, so you’re wrong again. Nick Stokes demanded an answer wrt to “doctored”, and I provided an answer.

      Someone on Mann’s team performed a contextomy on the passage. :)

      wiki:
      “As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.”

      Perfect fit.

    • > in order to misrepresent that authority

      Indeed, see for yourself, from our favorite authority:

      The Review examines the honesty, rigour and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted… On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

      http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/

      The misrepresentation may seem quite thin.

      ***

      Now, has Marc “doctored” the quote? I don’t find any “…” in the report.

  3. Barron has been a leading alarmist for many years.

  4. Beautifully written. A great summary.

  5. The biggest black eye the climate science field has given itself is in not throwing Mann under the bus. Are we to believe that Mann’s mojo is so strong the entire AGW edifice would crumble without him? Or is it because Mann knows where all the bodies are buried and Schmidt, Jones and the rest of the Hockey Team can’t afford pitching him under the wheels? (Sorry, I so enjoy the imagery I had to use it twice!)

    • Mike M -
      The great irony here, especially in light of the fact that the Muir Russell analysis was concerned only with CRU scientists, is that this inquiry was occasioned by the Climategate e-mails. In those e-mails we find numerous complaints BY MANN’S COLLEAGUES, that he played fast and loose with facts and data, that his conclusions were not supported by the findings, and that he behaved as a bully. His own colleagues, at least in private, make claims that are tantamount to accusations of fraud.

  6. Indeed Joshua, and as ‘the scientists in question’ were all from CRU it does reveal just how dishonest Mann’s claim to have been cleared by MR is.
    Glad to see you talking honestly for once:)

  7. Jakehearts the accountant

    Great analysis. There shouldn’t be as much controversy regarding public disclosure of researcher’s emails as there is. If you’re an academic researcher receiving federal grants or work at a taxpayer supported institution, your emails specifically pertaining to research topics, should be open to public disclosure. I recall early on in the Cucchinelli vs UVA suit, the judge offered himself as the arbiter of what emails to release to the public and what emails that were considered to be private matters that should be withheld.

    • I’m not so sure that academics don’t have the right to private emails. This could cut both ways: If ‘skeptics’ can trawl emails for embarrassing disclosures, so can ‘warmists’. This could have a chilling effect on the willingness of younger researchers to express doubts about the ‘consensus’, in case at some later date they may be exposed for ‘climatologically incorrect’ views. In the present ‘climate’, who wins here?

      When embarrassing emails are leaked, aka climategate, well, that’s a windfall, but does that mean that mean that all emails should be cc:the world ? In a free society the right to free public speech is fundamental, but isn’t there a right to private speech too?

      OTOH if it turns out that academics don’t have the right to private emails, probably they would just stop using their .ac emails for anything but the most banal official business and revert to hotmail and text messaging for anything possibly controversial, being careful to delete every week or two. Such is the law of unintended consequences.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Gareth: I’m not so sure that academics don’t have the right to private emails.

      Universities have policies governing the use of the computer systems that they provide to faculty, and the faculty sign agreements to stay informed about the policies and to abide by them. Furthermore, government have policies concerning the archiving of records of work done under contract to them, hence the applicability of the FOI acts.

      OTOH if it turns out that academics don’t have the right to private emails, probably they would just stop using their .ac emails for anything but the most banal official business and revert to hotmail and text messaging for anything possibly controversial, being careful to delete every week or two.

      Policies usually distinguish between personal use (insulting people and arranging vacations) and academic use (discussing data and manuscripts), same as most private companies distinguish between personal use and business use.

      The issue in the suit against Mann at UVA is not whether he was controversial, but whether he overstepped proper agreed use of the computer facilities; and whether his contractual relations with the State of VA render his computer use subject to the FOI law.

      So far, UVA is trying to avoid disclosing anything, such as the copy of the computer use agreement signed by Mann. (please correct me, somebody, if I am wrong.)

  8. Joshua

    Am I missing something here?

    Mann never worked at CRU – so the relevance of anyone’s opinion on CRU scientists is precisely zero.

    Yet another one of your smelly little red herrings (like making up quotes from me about Andrew Montford).

    • FG -

      (like making up quotes from me about Andrew Montford).

      ?? Where did I “make up” quotes form you?

      When I referenced your lame defense of Montford’s laughable excuses for making inaccurate statements on the radio (because he’s not a climate scientist and because he can’t keep figures in his head)?

    • I don’t who whose “lame defence” it was – but it certainly didn’t come from me.

      I’ve noticed you making stuff up before – it gives you zero credibility, to anyone with a memory span longer than a fruit fly.

    • FG -

      I don’t who whose “lame defence” it was – but it certainly didn’t come from me.

      You said that I “made up quotes” from you.

      Can you show me where I “made up quotes” from you?

    • FG -

      Looks like I owe you an apology:

      Bish did a good job of putting the observable facts in a way the ordinary citizen understands them – Mathews had an opportunity to put the science consensus point of view.

      So you didn’t defend his lame excuses, you only defended his inaccurate statements on the basis that inaccurate statements are “the way the ordinary citizen understands them.”

      And you also indicated that in holding Montford accountable for accuracy, Richard Betts undermined the impression that he is practical or down to earth:

      I always thought you were a practical, down-to-earth sort of bloke.

      But no, you did not defend Montford’s lame excuses:

      It was Paul Matthews who defended Montford’s lame excuses:

      Obviously those words were just what came out at the time, and if he had received the questions in advance and had time to prepare an answer he might have phrased some of his answers differently.

      Again, apologies. I guess I mistakenly thought that you had written his comment.

      Now I don’t think that I “made up quotes” as making up quotes would technically involve making up quotes – but I was wrong in saying that you defended Montford’s lame excuses.

      You only defended his inaccurate statements, not his excuses for making those inaccurate statements.

    • Don’t play dumb – you just referenced the comment above,

    • OK – so, as I thought, you did make it up.

      I don’t accept it was an error – because I’ve seen you do it so often elsewhere.

    • Foxgoose,

      Skeptics do it to too. mommy mommy.

      Oh wait. None of them are officers of the court

    • FG -

      I don’t accept it was an error – because I’ve seen you do it so often elsewhere.

      I have noticed that you have not yet provided one tiny little example of me “making up quotes.” Regardless of my error, I didn’t make up a quote. Not here. Not elsewhere.

      So as for your lame excuse for Montford’s error (and not the lame excuse for Montford’s excuse, which wasn’t offered by you, but another “skeptic”)…

      Thanks for the laugh.

  9. Well said, Judith

  10. For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.
    The Bible

  11. Steve McIntyre

    Judith, the various official academic institutions were nowhere in evidence when FOI requests were made to Willie Soon or Ed Wegman. Had they stood up for Soon or Wegman, their representations for Mann would have a better chance of being regarded as being grounded on principle rather than politics.

    • Did the individuals or their institutions choose to do so?

      No.

      Then what the hell??

    • Michael,
      Where is this McIntyre fellow when we talk about the physics of climate change? He only seems to pop up when some political intrigue gets stirred up. Is it perhaps that he has some underlying agenda?

    • WHT,
      McIntyre’s expertise is in mathematics and statistics. This is obvious.
      By the way, shouldn’t you be out shoveling the roof right now?

    • blueice2hotsea

      Improved Methods for PCA-Based Reconstructions: Case Study Using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic Temperature Reconstruction

      McIntyre is published in climate science. And as can be seen from his comments, a rational, civil agent for clarity. Quite the contrast…

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “WHT,
      McIntyre’s expertise is in mathematics and statistics. This is obvious.
      By the way, shouldn’t you be out shoveling the roof right now?”

      And in the improper use of proxies by bunk artists :)

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      whutster might take a lesson for himself on whut to talk about.

    • Where is this Mann fellow when we talk about the physics of climate change? He only seems to pop up when some political intrigue gets stirred up. Is it perhaps that he has some underlying agenda?

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: Where is this McIntyre fellow when we talk about the physics of climate change?

      He has published in the peer-reviewed literature on the use of techniques of multivariate statistics in the analysis of time series of proxy data to infer ancient temperatures. FWIW, that is the same field in which Mann has published and gained fame. He also has conducted careful analyses of some of Mann’s peer-reviewed publications and supporting online material (re the famous McShane and Wyner et al contributions in the Annals of Statistical Science), and Mann’s blog entries at Real Climate.

      He has been a most insightful writer on the topic of proxy reconstructions of past temperatures, and of seeming contradictions in Mann’s presentations of his own work.

      None of Mann’s published or unpublished work relates to the physics of climate change, nor do his lawsuites against Ball and Steyn have anything to do with the physics of climate change. Perhaps if Mann ever sues someone over misrepresenting his views on the physics of climate change your question might matter.

    • Matthew,

      That’s not physics.

      Statistical quibbling can be useul, but it’s fair to say that McIntyre epitomises the under-grad training warning about the drunken-man approach to stats.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Michael: Statistical quibbling can be useul, but it’s fair to say that McIntyre epitomises the under-grad training warning about the drunken-man approach to stats.

      McIntyre exposed flaws in the statistical work of Mann et al, and Steig et al,

    • Altenatives.

      There are typically many options – though victims of statistical dererminism will often try to tell you the only right way is their way.


    • McIntyre exposed flaws in the statistical work of Mann et al, and Steig et al,

      amazing, a professor would thank the student for pointing out the mistake, yet the student will still have to pass the course.

      Marcott and the Pages 2K project have substantiated all that tree-ring work in the meantime. Hard to stem the tide of scientific progress.

      Do you understand this at all? This is physics we are talking about, not some point-scoring game show.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Whut,
      It took Steve a very short time to point out what funny stuff Marcott was made of and a shorter time to dispose of the foundation of the Pages 2K underpinnings.

      Don’t you read?
      emails show they found out Mc was right, Mike implored them to continue in his vein, but it all foundered.

    • Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      WHUT,

      email on the Gergi et al Fiasco

      “I think that it is much better to use the detrended data for the selection of proxies, as you can then say that you have identified the proxies that are responding to the temperature variations on interannual time scales, ie temp-sensitive proxies , without any influence from the trend over the 20th century . This is very important to be able to rebut the criticism is that you only selected proxies that show a large increase over the 20th century ie a hockey stick.

      The same argument applies for the Australasian proxy selection. If the selection is done on the proxies without detrending ie the full proxy records over the 20th century, then records with strong trends will be selected and that wi ll effectively force a hockey stick result. Then Stephen Mcintyre criticism is valid. I think that it is really important to use detrended proxy data for the selection, and then choose proxies that exceed a threshold for correlations over the calibration period for either interannual variability or decadal variability for detrended data.”

      See, Whutster? My suggestion is start to read, or start to remain silent on matters that you have no clue WHUTever about :)

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”

      Malice evidenced. Stupidity even more so.

    • Settle down kiddies. Temperature fluctuates according to the forcing applied. Find the forcing over the past history and you will see how the temperature varies == not much.

      It’s a different situation the last 130+ years.

      http://contextearth.com/2014/02/05/relative-strengths-of-the-csalt-factors/

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “Physician”, heel thyself

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: Marcott and the Pages 2K project have substantiated all that tree-ring work in the meantime. Hard to stem the tide of scientific progress.

      The Mann “discovery” of the non-existence of the Medieval Warm Period (what he later referred to as the “Medieval Climate Anomaly”) has not been substantiated. All the work put together shows that the Earth had a higher global mean temperature at least several times in the past 10,000 years. That was even the gist of the Marcott et al paper, which had enough of its own problems.

      I am glad that you like physics, but that is not what Mann has been publishing: his work has been devoted to proxy reconstructions of past global temperatures, i.e. statistical analyses of multiple time series. The same is true of the Steig reconstruction of the Antarctic temperature trend — time series analysis instead of physics.

    • WEB,

      So physics is the only discipline applicable to climate science?

      The phrase big boy pants gets used here from time to time. You might consider putting any type of pants, so as to keep your ass from showing.

    • Whut,
      Why are you posting comments, which I assume are to discredit McIntyre’s authority in Climate Science, on this thread? I doubt Steve (apologies if wrong), would consider himself a Climate Scientist, but foremost a statistician with a strong knowledge of mineralogy (sorry if that’s not the right word). Also, I suspect Steve would consider himself to have good intuition about how real world systems operate, and how people fixate on a single variable in complex systems and work to prove the world revolves around that single observation.

      But this thread is about something else. It’s about the proper way to debate an issue, and in this case an issue of huge importance to the economic well being of humans. At the root of the debate is not Iphones, the internet, google, etc.: lives are at stake. Some believe Anthro produced CO2 will cause human misery, and human deaths. Others believe the opposite, that an over-emphasis of risks will cause more human misery, and human deaths.

      In this particular thread, the important question is how this debate will be played out. Will it be open, with the warts of both sides displayed, or a post-modernist attempt to Despite that the issue is of massive importance, Mann has decided to use human institutions to try to stifle information flow. Alternatively, he could support his science and his views. Or even, accept the criticisms, go back to the drawing board, and work through the issues in his paleo reconstructions. That’s what a truth seeker would do.

      The exceedingly careful statements and analysis by Steve McIntyre, in my view, promote a better understanding. Shouldn’t that be a good thing?

  12. Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

    The important issue here is “academic freedom” (I do not care on how this suing process will end).
    JC, MM and the rest of academic scientist, need to have freedom enough (in their academic institutions) to express their scientific views. But this priviledge has a counterpart: a responsibility.
    If Mann’s “hockey stick” or if Curry’s “Stadium wave” contain manipulated proxy indicators to get the best quantitative estimates of the temperature record of past centuries that “support” their theories: they should act with the appropriate responsibility.

    • Can somebody explain how ‘academic freedom’ differs from any other orm of freedom?

      Seems to me that some academics interpret this vaguely defined concept as the idea that – because they are academics – their actions and work and their work should be completely immune from criticism or scrutiny.

      The last guy to have that idea was (IIRC) the pope..and even his idea of infallibility seesm to have fallen into disrepute.

      Surely the special privileges that academics get should mean that they are judged by higher – not lower – standards than the common herd they so despise?

    • “JC, MM and the rest of academic scientist, need to have freedom enough (in their academic institutions) to express their scientific views”

      True. However, when you publish an analysis of data you should also be in a position to provide all the analysis in the form of a supplemental.
      Part of the problem is that the use of computing for data sorting and analysis was used before the ground rules for data storage and dissemination were laid down.
      This is really needs to be resolved by Journals and Institutions, in the same way you turn over copyright to a journal when you publish, you should also turn over all the metta data and the methodology in the form of algorithms and ‘turn-key’ programs.

    • metta (Pali): loving-kindness, compassionate love Yes, Doc, metta data should be freely available, just as metta is freely given, with no thought of self.

  13. FreeSpeechAdvocate

    If you do decide to sue Mann I would donate to your legal support fund. Just email.

    • Well, the problem with academic freedom is that too many professors think it only applies to them. They make the undergrads slave away on endless homework assignments without pay! Free the undergrads! The homework burdened masses must overthrow the academy and seize the means of publication!

      Most of the people at an academy are the unpaid, underage, beer swilling serfs, so if we really set the precedent by which “academic work” can’t be questioned or disparaged, how will the professors ever grade papers?

  14. Methinks Mann protesteth overly much.
    =============

  15. By the way, Mann has damaged all of us. How about class action?
    ==============

  16. Our hostess writes ” I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me.”

    ’nuff said.

  17. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
    Source: Hamlet (1.4), Marcellus to Horatio

  18. “As Curry admits, “I have at least as good a case against Michael Mann for defamation as he has against Steyn.”

    Like hell you do – a snow flakes chance in hell.

    Unless Mann has accused you of deliberately fabricating research findings.

    Steyn is just stupid, piled upon stupid, piled….you get the picture.

    People can express their own opinions in any way they like, but it approaches a line when it comes to facts (ie you can’t have your own facts), and lies told to make false allegations of fraud on the part of an individual, it’s way over the line.

    It’s just hilarious to watch Steyn whine and moan after all the cr@p he’s dished out to people over the years – the reality is that this case does nothing more than hold Steyn accountable for the veracity of his statements, purported to be factual.

    Popcorn please!

    Watch the scumbag squirm!!

    • The central claim is going to be the phrase:-
      “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

      Now all Steyn has to show one case where Mann has published a statistic or plot which constitutes ‘molestation or torture’ of the data, or, by omission, has not presented analysis he has performed which shows his conclusions are in doubt.

      Now for instance, has Mann ever taken two data sets, say a proxy reconstruction and thermometer measured temperature series, fused them, used the hybrid to calculate a running mean, then presented the running average of the hybrid series as that of only a proxy-series?

      If yes, then a jury will probably find that Mann has not been completely truthful in his publications.

      During a Roman triumph a slave would travel behind the victorious generals, holding the laurels, but whisper to him, ‘remember thou art mortal’.

    • “Unless Mann has accused you of deliberately fabricating research findings.”

      No that would be what Mann accused Mcintyre of
      By the way, Steyn did not accuse Mann of deliberately fabricating findings
      He said he created a “fraudulant” hockey stick and that he molested data.

      Take a look at the Gaspe series. Mann molested that data.
      Take a look at Tiljander, the AUTHOR who produced that data said than manns
      manipulation was a fraud.
      Take a look at what Briffa and Osborne said about Mann.

    • Mosher -

      I can’t find those e-mails from Briffa et. al. about Mann. Don’t some of those claim misuse of data, dishonesty, exaggeration, etc?

    • Tom C
      Mann made Ray Bradley want to vomit…

      http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/1705.txt

    • Tom c

      Of course, Ray thought Mann a bit immature…

      http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2560.txt

    • David Rind of GISS thought Mann rather thick…

      http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4133.txt

      ” 2) Concerning the hockey stick (which took up probably 3/4 of the review pages!): what
      Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is
      that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and
      without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)…”
      the globe actually got.

    • Joshua -

      Saying that someone is misrepresenting climate science is a claim that can either be supported or refuted. While serious, it is not at all like calling someone a name. Like “scumbag”. You know that, I know that, now stop being obtuse.

    • Oh my, what a bunch of dimwits!!

      Having a disagreement, or thinking that someones appraoch is the wrong one,is not the same thing as deliberate fraud.

    • Briffa damns Mann with faint praise…

      http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/3144.txt

      “yes there IS (or at least WAS) a sting in the tail. Mike was certainly not the best collaborator , and in some aspects of his work , not sufficiently aware of the characteristics of some of the data with which he worked. This would not be bad in itself , were allowance made and advice sought and accepted from a wider circle of colleagues or specialists than he was inclined to consult. There was a certain , apparent , overconfidence in his work which bordered on seeming arrogance and this has led to SOME EXTENT to a degree of unnecessary conflict with researchers and some members of the wider public , as regards the validity and certainty of some of his (and the IPCC) conclusions. “

    • Tom Wigley points out how high school science easily shows that tree rings are not good thermometers…

      http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0682.txt

    • Tom C

      Now i remember: “probable flaws” “clearly deficient” “crap” and “way too defensive.” What the Team REALLY thinks of Mann. Heh.

      http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-scientists-on-michael-mann.html

    • Mike,

      Thanks for that quote.

      Now we can see the real evil that is Michael Mann;

      “not the best collaborator”, “overconfident”.

      A real menace to society.

    • Mike,

      Another devastating critique.

      More please.

    • So you do not deny you are Mann. The completely over the top rhetoric and bad spelling is a sure give away. Mann, you magnificent bastard! I read your emails!!

    • Thanks.

    • Michael, I’m starting to get the impression that you’re not a very nice person. Considering the glaringly obvious stupidity that you exhibit in every comment, I should think that being nice would be a better strategy for you.

    • “you’re not a very nice person…. the glaringly obvious stupidity that you exhibit in every comment….” – Tom

      Tom’s level of self-awareness – zero.

  19. “Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.” – Curry

    Absolute BS.

    Steyn can spout all the BS about Mann and scientific issues he wants – this is just letting him know that there are responsibilities and consequences.

    Flaut your responsibiities and you have to deal with the consequences – there is no absolute right to free speech.
    And polluting public discourse with lies and nonsense, in the name of free-speech, devalues free-spech and is singularly unhelpful to informed public debate.

    And Steyn has been pulling this sh!t for ages,and getting away with it – he just thought he was untouchable. Hence all the current wailing and moaning.

    Steyn is an unethical, gutter-dwelling grub, who’s trying to run the free-speech angle to dave himsel ffrom the consequences of his own actions. Ally youself to that at your own peril.

    • @michael

      Did I miss the ‘wailing and moaning’? Seems to me that Mr Steyn is taking the opportunity to raise the stakes against the serial wailer and moaner Mann.

      And – viewed from the outside, I say good on him!

      Academics have far too high an opinion of their rights and privileges compared with ‘ordinary’ people. Possession of a PhD and a few mates to ‘pal review’ your papers does not give you some special immunity from scrutiny by everyone, no special freedoms that are not available to us nor the right to lecture us all about whatever the trendy topic of the common room happens to be this week.

      Most academics are paid public servants, asked to work on particular problems Their work should be subject to the same laws as any other public servant and subject to the same ethical standards as we expect from them.

      Mr Mann’s work – as shown in Climategate – suggests that he believes that – as a n academic – he should be held to some special standard and only judged by his mates. I fear he – and his supporters – will be very disappointed to discover that this is not the case.

      Mr Steyn is exactly right in what he has said about Mann and exactly right to countersue. I wish him every success.

    • blueice2hotsea

      Steyn is an unethical, gutter-dwelling grub…

      You’re taking this too personally. It isn’t about you. Unless of course you’re projecting. Then I’m wrong and owe you an apology.

    • “And polluting public discourse with lies and nonsense, in the name of free-speech, devalues free-spech and is singularly unhelpful to informed public debate.”

      Lies and nonsense are indeed unhelpful to informed public debate. But they are also an unavoidable consequence of free speech. Everyone will not be telling the truth all time. And that’s why all dictators use arguments like yours when they want to suppress free speech.

    • Joshua -

      Michael is a model for civil discourse, don’t you think?

      We are so lucky to have you with us as a referee sine qua non in the climate debates.

    • Michael –

      Your hysterics and clumsy, profane insults, suggest desperation.

    • Tom C -

      Michael is a model for civil discourse, don’t you think?

      Nope.

      So then the interesting question is why, despite that what you’ve read me say should make it obvious that I don’t have that opinion, you would wonder if I do have that opinion.

      I chalk it up to a failure to apply due skeptical diligence. What’s your explanation, Tom?

      And Tom, anyway, why would what Michael does or doesn’t do have anything to do with what Joe does, or what Ross does, or what Anthony does, or what Willis does, or what Roy does, or what RPSr. does, or what RPJr. does, or what Tisdale does, or what John Coleman does, or why any “skeptic” engages in juvenile name-calling? If I argued that Michael represents a model for civil discourse, would that then mean that name-calling from that crew would therefore suddenly become a model for civil discourse? I mean I’m flattered that you care so much about my opinion on Michael’s discourse, but my opinion on that issue bears no direct relevant to the quality of discourse engaged in by that crew, now does it?

      Or maybe you think that it does? If so, I’d appreciate an explanation.

    • Tom C -

      Your hysterics and clumsy, profane insults, suggest desperation.

      What do the hysterics and clumsy and profane insults from any number of “skeptics” and/or conservatives suggest to you?

      Desperation?

    • Joshua -

      I don’t have time to go point by point through your list. But, please do tell, what did Roger Pielke Sr. call someone that compares to Michael calling Steyn a scumbag?

    • I got tangled up in Michael’s line and read ‘free speech dangle’.
      ======================

    • Tom C -

      I don’t have time to go point by point through your list. But, please do tell, what did Roger Pielke Sr. call someone that compares to Michael calling Steyn a scumbag?

      Perhaps you could explain why Michael calling someone a scumbag is relevant to RPSr. posting an article at WUWT with a headline that accuses Trenberth of “misrepresenting climate science.”

      Maybe Anthony wrote the headline. But I find it interesting that he allowed his post with such a headline, and then said to Willis, later

      Willis – I strongly disagree with you on your post. I have no idea why you choose to attack him when there is plenty of science to discuss and analyze….I also prefer that WUWT not post personal attacks on anyone. This only demeans the website

      Just to be clear, I don’t doubt that RPSr. thinks that attacking people detracts from the scientific discussion. That’s what makes the ironic contrast of his statements that much more interesting. It is testimony to the power of motiva… reaso….

    • You know, your linguistic style is awfully familiar. What is your last name, Michael?

    • “Flaut your responsibilities”
      Oooh, Zamfir-like!

    • “profane” – TomC

      Tom,

      You poor little thing – I hope you aren’t scarred for life.

      Perhaps a nice lie down will help you recover from the schock?

    • Matthew R Marler

      Michael: there is no absolute right to free speech.

      Is anyone other than academics claiming an absolute right to free speech?

      Mann sued Steyn for libel, so he has to prove libel. Steyn’s defense and countersuit include references to errors (they become “lies” when corrections do not follow when the mistakes are pointed out) in Mann’s court documents, along with pointing out that “torturing data” is common parlance in scientific discourse.

      It may be fair to go to trial and let a jury decide whether Steyn committed “libel”, but it is certainly not obvious in the context of the language used by Mann against others and by others’ evaluations in private and in public of Mann.

    • “Is anyone other than academics claiming an absolute right to free speech?

      Mann sued Steyn for libel, so he has to prove libel” – Matthew

      And not even them Matthew.
      So there’s no issue with Mann sueing Steyn is there? – there are limits to speech.

      And on your 2nd sentence – yep, so again, what’s the big deal. if he can’t prove it, it will be his problem.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Michael: And on your 2nd sentence – yep, so again, what’s the big deal. if he can’t prove it, it will be his problem.

      That’s what Prof Curry said in the excerpt that you quoted. This has nothing to do with academic freedom, and Mann has to sink or swim on his own.

    • Said Michael: “…cowardly, splineless…”

      back-calculating, in-filling, one-trunk-inheriting, curve-fitting cur.

    • Latimer Alder | February 24, 2014 at 9:32 pm |

      What, Shakespeare can’t be both?

      Shakespeare disagrees with you.

      And one man in his time plays many parts,
      His acts being seven ages. At first, the infant,
      Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
      And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
      And shining morning face, creeping like snail
      Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
      Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
      Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
      Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
      Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
      Seeking the bubble reputation
      Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
      In fair round belly with good capon lined,
      With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
      Full of wise saws and modern instances;
      And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
      Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
      With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
      His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
      For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
      Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
      And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
      That ends this strange eventful history,
      Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
      Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

  20. So.. in all of this, not a single invitation to anyone with actual legal expertise in such matters has been answered?

    Not a single qualified legal professional has stepped forward to address Dr. Curry’s questions and willingly be cited on Climate Etc. in their expert capacity?

    You have the combined legal expertise of a former mining bookkeeper, a self-employed photographer, and the usual suspects remarking on the combined legal expertise of people in two general categories: a) people our host supports ad personam by citing high principles of convenience, and b) people our host disagrees with who yet have precedent on their side..

    And no one has yet remarked on what a waste of time this topic is, thus stacked?

    Dr. Curry, if you really did support the specific claims of media access to information (having been so often bitten yourself by media misquoting your information to them), and of the mutated and unrecognizable assertion of freedom of speech, you no doubt would:

    A.) Publicly post every email you have ever sent or received to and from everyone in any capacity ever;
    B) Not moderate off or edit any comment by anyone on your blog, ever.

    Climate Etc. is talking a talk but obviously not walking that walk.

    • “Not a single qualified legal professional has stepped forward to address Dr. Curry’s questions and willingly be cited on Climate Etc. in their expert capacity?”

      Well that would spoil all the fun wouldn’t it?

      How could Judith embark on her latest round of ‘honest broker’ pointed and self-indulgent speculations if she refused to venture into areas way outside of her expertise (I’m sure someone has advised against such awful behaviour!).

      And then how could the legions of Climate Etc sheep launch into their well-rehearsed anti- MM vitriol?

      Cutting edge e-salon, yeah!!!!!!!!

    • And Judith clearly has a dog in this fight (her personal/professional antipathy to Michael Mann, or his work, has long been thinly, very thinly, disguised).

      Judith please produce, immediately, all emails you have ever sent or received that have mentioned MM, or anything pertaining to MM or any of his work.

    • Bart – in case you missed it, this is playing out in court, so the isn’t any need for lawyers here. Although if any want to weigh in, that too would be interesting. In fact, this whole chain of events is fascinating. This is a great and very informative post. It’s looking more and more like Mann will be hoisted by his own sorry petard. I for one will cheer his every loss. For his loss is a gain for science and civilization.

    • “You have the combined legal expertise of a former mining bookkeeper,”
      = Null of McIntyre

      ” a self-employed photographer”
      = The Raspberry

      For those keeping score

    • jim2 | February 23, 2014 at 10:14 am |

      It’s “foist”, not “hoisted”.

      As for the attitude that because something is being played out in real life, the fantasy league of Climate Etc. don’t need no stinkin’ experts outlook reveals rather a lot about the antipathy here for actual knowledge and understanding, though generally that is seen more in discussions of science than of law.

    • barn E. rubble

      RE: Michael | February 23, 2014 at 10:07 am |
      “. . . And then how could the legions of Climate Etc sheep launch into their well-rehearsed anti- MM vitriol? . . .”

      I’m wondering where &/or who Michael’s Shepherd is? On second thought, I don’t really care.

      Carry on Mickey, at least until Nick Stokes (among others?) can tag in . . .

    • @bart r

      Though no academic – but indeed a man of the people without even a PhD – Shakespeare wrote

      ‘For tis the sport to haue the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar’

      in the popular play, Hamlet. Perhaps you have come across it?

      A petar was a small bomb. To be ‘hoist (or even ‘hoisted’) by one’s own petar’ is to blow oneself up…to inflict self-damage. And Mr. Mann seems to have had a great deal of practice at that.

      Jim2 is correct.

      • David Springer

        Actually “petar” is French for “flatulate”. Petard is the explosive device for busting open gates and such. Shakespeare dropping the d from petard is believed by some to be an off-color pun.

    • Latimer Alder | February 23, 2014 at 10:59 am |

      It’s either “hoist (not hoisted) with his own petar’”, if one is quoting the Bard, or it’s foist (i.e. “impose an unwelcome or unnecessary person or thing on”), if one is applying the common American usage as most often appears in courtroom drama by American writers, in the sense of foisting a defamation.

      You’re forgiven for not having read anything American or about modern legal matters, as it appears your literary tastes end rather before 1776.

      Either way, you can’t argue that jim2 was correct, or even more correct, for his addition of a syllable to the Bard’s iambic pentameter, compared to substitution of a single letter that makes the phrase more nearly true.

    • “The most interesting ones are from MM himself :)” – JC

      Evasion.

      What is Judith Curyr trying to hide?

      The lack of transparency is damaging science.

    • Latimer Alder | February 23, 2014 at 10:59 am |

      Oh, and that would be Mr. William Shakespeare, Gentleman of Stratford on Avon, son of High Bailiff of Stratford, Mr. John Shakespeare, Gentleman landowner and Mary Arden, of the Ardens of Park Hall. Perhaps you’re confusing him with the populist writer he sometimes collaborated with, John Fletcher?

      William Shakespeare was a One Percenter of his day and place. His plays were mainly about princes and ladies of court, and his portrayal of common folk were he had any at all was invariably of dolts and cheats of low morals: Dogberry, Bottom, Pistol, Bardolph..

      Trying to claim William Shakespeare as one of the 99% is bizarre.

    • Seriously Bart,
      Funny how you criticize people with no legal experience opining and then launch into the most stupid position I have ever read. Astounding.

    • @bart r

      I am struggling to understand what the meaning of ‘foist with one’s own petard’ could possibly be. Please explain.

      Whereas ‘hoist with one’s own petard’ as per the Bard of Stratford gives a graphic vision of doing self-damage by blowing oneself up with a weapon intended for another purpose. You may recall some Jihadis who were at suicide bomber school a week or so ago who managed to do the same

      Absent any better explanation, and bearing in mind that Google can find no references to your alternative, I think we can all agree that it is ‘hoist’.

    • Yes, Lets call Bart’s bluff.

      Post the mails from Mann.

      Oh wait, I have the climategate III mails.. lets do the full monty

      Here is a clue Bart. File an FOIA with Judith’s institution. It’s not hard.
      If you think you have a right to the mail, file it.
      Then see what they say.
      Then Appeal.
      It’s pretty effin simple. get your lazy ass off the couch and file it.

    • No, no, moshe; his session’s not done.
      ===========

    • Mosh said:


      It’s pretty effin simple. get your lazy ass off the couch and file it.

      What is even more simple is to scientifically characterize Curry’s Stadium Wave in terms of its possible effects on climate and then use that in a model to demonstrate its effect quantitatively.

      http://contextearth.com/2014/02/05/relative-strengths-of-the-csalt-factors/

      Why go after gossipy innuendo when the science is so much more straightforward?

    • @bart r

      Shakespeare was a playwright and actor.

      He made his living as part of a travelling troupe putting on entertainments in inns and other stopping points. It is well-documented that being on the stage was considered a pretty lowly occupation – then and now. He worked and lived with the ‘common’ folk…not as a member of the aristocracy or the ’1%’- whatever that may be.

      Of course he wrote about Kings and Queens and Battles and feuds and all the other stuff. He and his company needed to put on a show that people were happy to pay good money for. Writing about the repetitive life of a village ploughman would not have brought in the crowds.

    • Latimer Alder | February 23, 2014 at 1:30 pm |

      What an absurd load of crock. Shakespeare owned the troupe he made his living with, like Donald Trump owns the reality television show The Donald appears on. And as much as I’m sure we all agree with the low opinion the world has of Donald Trump, he’s still not what anyone would call the common man.

      William Arden Shakespeare was born an aristocrat, though his father bought his jumped-up status. William got his “little Latin and less Greek” from his Park Hall-tutored mother, Mary, and no doubt no small number of ideas about how aristocratic ladies were raised and behaved, as we see in Taming of the Shrew, Merchant of Venice, and on and on. His works bespeak authorship by landed gentry, not commoner nor elite aristocrat himself. His themes were not populist in the least, and indeed he clearly favored the divine right of kings, treatment of humans as property, and many other ideas that even in his own day would be considered retrograde. You cannot counterfeit Shakespeare as the People’s Bard, and be taken seriously.

      As for the wordplay of combining ‘foist with defamation,’ the phrase for one burdened by ill-reputation against one’s choice, and “hoist with his own petar’[d]“, to obtain a phrase for that mechanism whereby one who goes about defaming others is himself defamed, that’s not very original. Half the wits who practice law in such matters at some point mouth this perversion of the Bard to affect a pretense of education. Which is what made me think it what jim2 was striving for when he improperly added a foot to the line (as he’s attempting to do now with what I said), throwing off scansion.

      Steven Mosher | February 23, 2014 at 12:29 pm |

      You’re missing the point, if you think I bluff; or even if you don’t.

      It shouldn’t take an FOI to get what ought be public and transparent.

      FOI is a costly and shoddy mechanism more susceptible to mischief (as you have shown) than answering the principle of public right to know.

      With cloud technology, how dare any public institution store anything at all that the public purse has paid for behind any level of opacity whatsoever, and require filing of forms and involvement of government agencies before a member of the public can inspect the contents?

      One cannot take a principled position on transparency in Science or Academia or publicly-funded bodies (including, let’s face it, the entire energy sector) while claiming FOI is transparency, or hiding behind any excuse to fail to disclose, if one is trying to hammer Mann in this case, as Mann has far exceeded the requirements of FOI. Curry has not gone half so far on disclosure as Mann, by any measure, and where allusion is made about disclosure, it appears to be coy threat or insinuation for the sake of titillation rather than in the honest spirit of openness in science.

      How then is anyone to think that’s being done on principle?

    • “Ask MM if we wants me to make public the email exchange that he had with Peter Webster :)” – JC

      More evasion.

      Show us your emails.

      Science is dying!!

    • “It shouldn’t take an FOI to get what ought be public and transparent.”

      The reason it takes an FOI is that it is not clear on its face what OUGHT to be public and transparent.

      For example. Judith may have mails relating to students grades which are protected. She may have mails relating to student health, or faculty raises.
      She may have protected emails with lawyers.

      The reason for FOI is that there are multiple claims. If you think you have a claim
      write the damn FOI. Then find out.

    • On a more serious note – the quote above from JC is charaterisitci of udith’sunethicalbehaviour in relation to other scientists with whom she has a disagreement.

      Think back to the wildly vague claims of a “cabal (?) of scientists” in the IPCC who were using the IPCC to boost their careers with scant regard for actual science.

      It was quite a serious charge and Judith was pressed for details – she demurred with some weak excuses, but left the charges standing, with the effect to tar everyone with the same brush. All evidence free,of course.
      I thought it cowardly and unethical – a real case of put up or shutup.

      Now this – oh, i know someone with some emails from MM, wink wink nudge nudge. Nuturally we are meant to take the hint that all reflects very poorly on Michael Mann.

      No evidence will be forth-coming,of course.

      What is this – passive-aggressive,cowardly, splineless, underhanded?

      Unethical behaviour, without a doubt.

      I’d even consider it a kind of cyber-bullying.

    • @bart r

      Shakespeare’s father was a glover…a merchant. And a High Bailiff in those days was somewhere between a magistrate and a mayor..an elected official of the Town Council. How you equate these solid bourgeois achievements with being a member of the aristocracy or the landed gentry escapes me.

      I’d note here that our late Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher’s father, Alderman Roberts had almost precisely the same achievements as John Shakespeare – just in a different town and 300 years later. But unlike her, he did not go on from the local town school to University (tho’ Oxford is little more than a day’s journey from Stratford on the London Road), but left for the life of a travelling actor – picking up work where he could.

      Shakespeare was a commercial dramatist…he made his living by putting on shows that people wanted to see and pay good money for. By definition he was highly attuned to the public taste.And to fill his theatres (see the Globe reconstruction at Bankside, London) he needed lots of bums on seats (or standing). His plays were the hit Broadway attractions of the day bringing in – and aimed at – people of all classes.

    • John Carpenter

      “Seriously Bart,
      Funny how you criticize people with no legal experience opining and then launch into the most stupid position I have ever read. Astounding.”

      Your wrong SM, Bart is an expert in everything he sets his pen to, get with the program. But remember, Bart is keen to argue ‘ideas’ only, he never attacks the people who have them. No, Bart knows that it is the ideas first and foremost and those who make them can stand well protected behind their pseudonym as the expertise of the person is not was is important.

    • Bart – you write so much about so little. In this case, the petard is the lawsuit. Try to keep up.

    • Steven Mosher | February 23, 2014 at 3:11 pm |

      When the public’s paid so much for the privileges of the few, ought not the default be open, with an application made by those who feel they ought be protected against inspection by the paying public for restraint of information?

      I personally have zero interest in the contents of Dr. Curry’s emails, or those of any academic in the world. If they were public, I’d never read them.

      But if taxpayers paid for something, then ought they not have the right to inspect it for themselves, or to at least negotiate with their public servants (like academicians at publicly funded schools or schools with students supported by government aid; or oil company workers, or the local High Bailiff) a reasonable standard of separation of what belongs to the public from what they consider confidential, so the paying public is not imposed on to jump through FOI hoops?

      Your way multiplies government for the same outcome or worse. My way reduces government for the same outcome or better.

      Why do you seek more big government?

    • @bart r

      That Shakespeare’s plays tacitly assumed the divine right of kings to rule in the late 1500s was not unusual. Pretty much all others did so too.

      The big discussion of the matter in England did not take place for another 50 years. You may recall that we had a bitter Civil War and beheaded a king to settle it in favour of Parliament.

      But Shakespeare was writing well before Charles 1st and his delusions. His shows were subject to censorship by the Lord Chamberlain (member of the Royal Household), and most his work was done at the end of Queen Elizabeth’s long reign. Anne Boleyn may have been her mother, but there can be no doubt that Henry VIII was her father and that she inherited some of his character. The divine right was a given of the time. Do not read too much into Shakespeare’s implicit acceptance of it.

    • Bart, I find it curious that after appearing in the comments thread here for almost three years, that you would find it unusual that non-members of a certain profession would venture to comment on that profession and its proceedings.

      You do realize that this site is primarily concerned with climate science and that the vast majority of commenters here are not scientists, don’t you?

      I’m curious as to why you want Dr. Curry to publicly post her emails. Really. If it’s just for a symbolic gesture, perhaps you should lead the parade instead of inciting to riot… where are your emails?

    • Tom Fuller | February 24, 2014 at 12:40 am |

      READ HARDER.

      Noting zero actual experts either invited in the topic post or volunteering in the comments is not the same as noting many with zero expertise bringing their ample ignorance to bear on a highly technical and utterly alien-to-them field. No one is surprised by the latter, here, at this late date. However, it’s startling to see the former condition, as Dr. Curry has in past been exemplary in recruiting talent from many fields to at least post a hasty note, and sometimes to devote considerable time and effort to explain, educate, exhort or otherwise entertain.

      Do you see the difference?

      And I have zero interest in the content or even metadata of Dr. Curry’s emails or private files of any sort. It’s hard enough reading the things Dr. Curry writes knowing they’ll be public, so, no, my lament is that it’s necessary to go through the charade of FOI to access all that information which ought be public, and that publicly-funded institutions in this day and age make so little effort to intrinsically structure their conduct and data storage methods to streamline the delivery of information transparently and seamlessly. And, as in all ways we can measure, we can see Dr. Mann has equalled or exceeded Dr. Curry’s habits of disclosure of data and correspondence, it is merely the noting of hypocrisy to observe the irony of Dr. Curry’s stated position in this regard.

      See, me, I have no publicly-funded data to disclose, though I frequently consult to those who do. When I deal with them, I urge privately what I urge publicly: get your own house in order, and put everything out for public inspection so easily and conveniently as possible from cradle to grave.

      So while I don’t think Dr. Curry’s private correspondences are particularly interesting, I think Dr. Curry’s unreleased data and methods, and those of every member of her institution, ought be open. While her house is otherwise, she’s throwing stones.

    • Latimer Alder | February 23, 2014 at 10:05 pm |

      All others? Could you name them? How about ten of them? No? Four? Three? Two?

      Chaucer was far earlier, and yet Chaucer’s implicit views contain all the irony and satire on this point of someone who more than addressed the Gentleman of Avon’s toadying attitude.

      The threads that a half century later would be pulled loose on Charles’ collar were frayed and being picked at long before Shakespeare.

      But perhaps you can furnish at least one other playwright of the day who were Shakespeare’s equal in ardent support of notions we find backwards today.

      Other playwrights of Shakespeare’s London? Not nearly so much nor so far, except perhaps in passages they outright stole from Shakespeare.

      How about in France? Nope. While not entirely absent, the attitude was softer and often mocked.

      Spain? There it was clearly the subject of scorn as an outdated attitude.

      Italy? After Dante, none would dare.

      No. Shakespeare cannot be seen as a Left-Wing Progressive hack by any means, nor a Marxist, nor a Socialist. He’d have abhorred unions and propagandized for mine owners, and indeed arguments lifted directly from Henry V did just that in later times. He supported slavery, and the oppression of religious minorities; he was an open racist, an open misogynist, and an open monarchist far out of the ordinary even for his time. If he were alive today, he’d be East Texan. He was undoubtedly popular, not populist. His popularity no doubt came largely from his extraordinary gift for off-colored wordplay (petar’ for petard, as has been noted) and sneaking bawdy lines past the censorship of his day, his personal charisma, voluminous body of work, gift for attracting the loyalty of the very talented, and his persistence. If that’s what you call appeal to the popular, then sure, dirty jokes are always popular. It can’t be said that he was popular because he championed ‘The People’ or their causes. He very plainly did not; and is widely acknowledged to have been paid to propagandize for particular noble patrons instead, not the commoner.

    • Bart -

      It does seem that there may be one comment from someone with relevant legal expertise:

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/#comment-463781

      • David Springer

        Really? Thyacycline?

        Because in your non-expert legal opinion he makes sense to you?

        Rud Istvan has a JD from Harvard. Maybe follow him instead, whether you agree or not.

    • @bart r

      ‘Shakespeare cannot be seen as a Left-Wing Progressive hack by any means, nor a Marxist, nor a Socialist.’

      And I never suggested he was. My sole remark was

      ‘Though no academic – but indeed a man of the people without even a PhD’

      Perhaps you need to put new batteries in your irony meter?

      And you might also care to reflect that some of his contemporary dramatists (Marlowe, Nashe and Greene) were known as the ‘University Wits’ and – true to academic form everywhere – were very dismissive of the upstart William’s talents compared with their super-educated and refined sensitivities.

      Today Marlowe is remembered only for his drunken death, Nashe and Greene are forgotten, and live Shakespeare is beamed to cinemas around the world from the National Theatre in London…within a stone’s throw of the Elizabethan theatres where his work was first performed.

      What price a PhD?

    • “The most interesting ones are from MM himself :)”

      It might be instructive to compare the geographical location of the sender’s local ISP gateway IP address logged by the originating mailserver in the mail header with the geographical location of the IP address used by CE commenter ‘Michael’.

      Just sayin’. :)

    • ‘Michael’ says:
      “the quote above from JC is charaterisitci of udith’sunethicalbehaviour in ”

      Here, have this cloth to wipe the spittle off your keyboard Mikey. Then you can use it to polish your nobel prize.

    • Springer -

      Rud Istvan has a JD from Harvard.

      Well what do we have here? Yet another “skeptic” appealing to authority? Say it ain’t so, Springer, say it ain’t so.

      Rud has demonstrated to me that he is an ideologue who has an extremist perspective that justifies attacks against debate and open discussion of scientific differences.

      The stupid burns. See rgbatduke lest you cannot grok for yourselves. RP sr, how did you not counsel JR into not getting into such a situation. Debating with m@r@ns cannot end well. Never did, never will.

      Now that doesn’t invalidate his legal perspectives, but it also doesn’t make me particularly inclined to think that his blog comments are necessarily informative just because of his degree. I judge the value of blog comments based on the intrinsic merits of the comments themselves.

      Thyacycline’s comment seemed to reflect actual relevant practical experience as well as theoretical understanding, not just some broad reference to a degree as you offered. I thought he made some interesting points. Perhaps you or someone else would like to address them? I think it would be interesting to read knowledgeable responses. Appealing to authority won’t cut it.

      • David Springer

        Joshua | February 24, 2014 at 11:24 am |

        Springer: “Rud Istvan has a JD from Harvard.”

        Well what do we have here? Yet another “skeptic” appealing to authority? Say it ain’t so, Springer, say it ain’t so.

        ——————————————————————-

        It ain’t so. BartR complained that no legal experts were giving opinions here. So I axed: does a JD from Harvard count as a legal expert?

        So Joshua, what do you think? Does a JD from Harvard count as a legal expert? Yes or no will suffice. Thanks in advance for brevity.

    • Bart R.
      “When the public’s paid so much for the privileges of the few, ought not the default be open, with an application made by those who feel they ought be protected against inspection by the paying public for restraint of information?”

      you dont think very deeply.

      When the public ( a student) is forced by law to have health insurance, you now want that same public to pay to keep their health records secret.

      When students have paid for their education, you want access to their student professor communications. Next you’ll demand Obama’s transcripts.

      When a professor communicates with their lawyer and pays for those services, you want access to their mails unless they pay?

      The point is the FOI law has exceptions, for a reason. Even in the Climategate escapade there was a public interest/national interest balancing test.

      Reasonable people can see these balancing tests differently. The balance between the public’s right to access to work that it pays for will be balanced against academic freedom. simple minded black and white either or approaches to the issue are not very serious. Drawing the line is messy and imperfect.

      So, I sit here with climategate 3 files. your advice would be what?

    • Steven Mosher | February 24, 2014 at 12:44 pm |

      My advice would be the same as I offered Dr. Curry: get competent counsel, tell them what outcome you want, and hear out what you pay them to tell you, as you know parties to these matters to be litigious.

      As asking people who you know aspire to not think very deeply for advice in serious issues is bound to provoke shallow replies, I doubt you’ll follow the advice.

      Though, truthfully, I don’t care what you do with climategate3, 4, 5 or 50. My experience of the first two and the umpteen inquiries since tells me all I need to know, which is nothing one wouldn’t expect if one had spent any time at all among academics.

      I’d far rather see the next B.E.S.T. reports, openly and transparently documented, and integrated with perhaps something like http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html .. which would also be nicer if it were more open and transparent, too.

    • Latimer Alder | February 24, 2014 at 2:45 am |

      Oh. I get it now. Thanks for explaining yourself.. eventually.

      You’re not siding with poor working people against wealthy aristocratic elites. You’re siding with wealthy aristocratic elites against education and scholarship.

      Do you see me flouting any letters after my name, other than “R”?

    • Bart.

      Except that is NOT the advice you gave to Judith. Your position is that full transparency ( student health, employment discipline, lawyer client etc ) should all be open by default and interested parties should pay the public if they want this kept secret. That was your position.

      So, in light of that, I’m asking for you advice in light of that. Not that I will take your advice or that it matters, but merely to illustrate that you do not
      believe what you argue. You’ve never believed in transparency even limited transparency. You’ve never fought for it, or written an FOI in your entire life.
      You construct opinions to fit the case in front of you.
      In other words you found it expedient to demand Judiths mails. To back this up you invented a position on transparency that you dont hold, have never held, and would drop when the circumstances change.

      You hold that these documents should be released unless interested parties pay to keep them secret. Yet, when asked to apply this to climategate 3, you go silent. You have no principles.

    • David Springer | February 23, 2014 at 3:35 pm |

      I really wouldn’t put much stock into what Bill Gates says about defamation, either.

      Don’t get me wrong; I think the world of Rud’s competency and have long admired how sharp a businessman he is.

      However, the world is teeming with competent lawyers who practice in this exact field of defamation, but are distant enough from this case that they could put forward an opinion publicly on the record, or act to educate the public without expressing a personal opinion.

      I’m not after argument from authority. I’m not a lawyer fanboy like that Skydragon Slayer fellow. I’m just galled by the lack of fact and reason from people who know the facts and how the reasoning works.

    • Bart.

      ‘I’d far rather see the next B.E.S.T. reports, openly and transparently documented, and integrated with perhaps something like http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2098.html .. which would also be nicer if it were more open and transparent, too.”

      1. All the reports are available free and on line
      2. the SVN is fricking OPEN and updated nightly, next you’ll
      ask to smell my socks. Give me an address I’ll send a pair
      3. Santer’s paper discusses the troposphere. Last I noticed we did
      the surface.
      4. Santer is a known data denier. Thanks for the next target however.

    • 4. Santer is a known data denier.

      Uh oh. Judith is going to be very upset with you, Steven. She is very concerned about the use of the term “denier.” She considers that to be an indication of unacceptable “scientific intolerance.”

      Of course, all of that assumes that she will be consistent in the application of her standards…

    • Steven Mosher | February 24, 2014 at 2:08 pm |

      My position and my advice are two very different things. If you go back over several topics, you’ll find the advice as applies to this circumstance is consistent.

      If you go back over the past several years, you’ll find the position on the general _min_archist principle to be consistent.

      You do understand the difference between general principle and special circumstance, yes?

      If Dr. Curry wants to conduct business in such a way that my advice were unnecessary, then conducting business in an unhypocritically principled way would achieve that end.

      So, I gently urge you READ FREAKING HARDER SO YOU DON’T COME ACROSS AS SOMEONE INCAPABLE OF COMPREHENSION.

      Dr. Curry, if you really did support the specific claims of media access to information (having been so often bitten yourself by media misquoting your information to them), and of the mutated and unrecognizable assertion of freedom of speech, you no doubt would:

      A.) Publicly post every email you have ever sent or received to and from everyone in any capacity ever;
      B) Not moderate off or edit any comment by anyone on your blog, ever.

      The passage is not a demand for Dr. Curry’s emails. It is a demonstration by Reductio ad absurdum that Dr. Curry, to paraphrase, illustrates that she does not believe what she argues. She’s never believed in transparency, even limited transparency. She’s never fought for it, or written an FOI in her entire life. (Not that writing an FOI demonstrates belief in transparency.) Dr. Curry constructs opinions to fit the case in front of her.
      In other words she found it expedient to demand Mann’s mails. To back this up she invented a position on transparency that she doesn’t hold, has never held, and would drop when the circumstances change.

    • Steven Mosher | February 24, 2014 at 2:19 pm |

      Wow.

      You don’t know how to take a compliment when offered.

      I was upholding B.E.S.T. as an epitome of how it ought be done, and Santer et al is quite adequately treated as a B.E.S.T. target, as I’d really like to see what happens when it’s done right.

    • Bart,

      What common Americans do you hang out with?

    • “Here, have this cloth to wipe the spittle off your keyboard….” – tallbloke

      Unsubstaintiated broadbrush allegations of a quite serious nature, that the accuser does not give any evidence for, and fails to retract in any way don’t reflect a sound ethical perspective, IMHO.

      Sounds OK to you?

    • @bart r

      May I recommend that you actually read what I write rather than leap to conclusions about things I have neither written nor implied. You have a fantastic ability to spin huge conspiracies from innocuous remarks. If you are in the US, I’m told an intensive, lengthy and expensive course of therapy may help. If outside the USA a long walk in the country would have the same effect at considerably less expense.

      Just noting that while Shakespeare is remembered around the world and his language has come into our day-to-day currency so fundamentally that we don’t even notice, his supposedly better educated and supposedly acadmically superior contemporaries have been pretty completely forgotten.

      You may draw whatever other conclusions you like from these observations.

      But if you wish to claim that I am ‘siding’ with something or other you’d better have some evidence more substantial than your own imagination.

      And jfi, what is your understanding of the term ‘aristocrat’ as it applied in 16thC England? WS became reasonably wealthy (see his purchase of New Place) and in today’s society he would be probably considered a substantial member of the bourgeoisie. But that’s a long way from being an aristo.

      Oxford Entrance Examination specimen question for you: ‘William Shakespeare would have been a better and more substantial dramatist if he had attended this University. Discuss’.

    • Latimer Alder | February 24, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

      Really? That’s what you’re going with?

      That a privately tutored aristocrat was like the unwashed masses in some way Hamlet, Paris, or any of Shakespeare’s University-educated heroes weren’t?

      You may think little of an education, but Shakespeare sure did.

    • @bart r

      Since the ideas that Shakespeare was

      1 . An ‘aristocrat’ – rather than the son of a local merchant and
      2. ‘Was ‘privately tutored’ – rather than attended the local town school

      seems to be yet more of your flights of imagination unsupported by any reliable sources, I think we’d better leave it there.

  21. Excellent post, Judith.
    In the corporate world, all emails sent from the corporate email account are considered to be the property of the company. The company may inspect them; further, they are retained automatically for a period of time and are producible in discovery. The government has a similar policy, with certain exceptions (e.g. security). None of this seems to impede free discussions. So I don’t understand the claim of special privilege for academics in this regard. It does mean that they perhaps must be a little more circumspect. But as we were advised, “Act and talk so that you wouldn’t be embarrassed if what you did and said were announced on the local news.” [Not a direct quote.]

    • It’s easy.

      If academics don’t want to be subject to FoI laws, they are quite at liberty to go and find employment in some field where such laws do not apply. But if they want to take public money, FoI is the price they pay.

    • “Act and talk so that you wouldn’t be embarrassed if what you did and said were announced on the local news.”

      What I heard was: “don’t put anything in an email that you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of the New York Times.” This was common knowledge when I was learning about the Internet in ’98.


    • Latimer Alder | February 23, 2014 at 10:26 am |

      It’s easy.

      If academics don’t want to be subject to FoI laws, they are quite at liberty to go and find employment in some field where such laws do not apply. But if they want to take public money, FoI is the price they pay.

      OK, go through a list of countries that fund climate science and tell me the international laws that you OneWorldGovernment believers think applies.

      For instance, since you a part of the NWO tell me the procedures you have instituted for getting a Chinese climate researcher to give up his supporting data to an English bloke.

      You said it was “easy” after all. Why should we not believe you?

    • @webbie

      I am not at all a OneWorldGovernment believer. Quite the opposite. Perhaps the unseasonal cold spell in Minnesota has frozen your brain.

      Let me rephrase.

      It is an easy concept for academics to grasp. If they take public money they will be subject to FoI. If they find this too burdensome, they need to look for employment elsewhere.

      Example: It would probably be unwise for a persistent vertigo sufferer to accept a job as a Niagara Tightrope Walker.

      Ditto a flagrantly unethical ‘climate researcher’ would be better advised to go work for a green NGO where his/her correspondence would be less likely to become public. Some of the smarter ones probably already have.

    • Good point. In the engineering world, lawsuits are common. Our people are instructed to remember they may be in court one day defending what they wrote or said. Their emails, notes, letters, etc. pertaining to their work for the company are company property, and as such are subject to discovery. It even applies to messages left on company provided phones. If the judge says cough it up, then up it comes.


    • It is an easy concept for academics to grasp. If they take public money they will be subject to FoI. If they find this too burdensome, they need to look for employment elsewhere.

      You seem to be a believer in One World Government because you think a citizen of one country can demand that a citizen of another country give up their information through some sort of international laws that your NWO mind has dreamed up.

    • @webbie

      ‘You seem to be a believer in One World Government because you think a citizen of one country can demand that a citizen of another country give up their information through some sort of international laws that your NWO mind has dreamed up.’

      Wow. That’s quite a stretch even for your frozen Minnesotan brain.

      The limit of my point is that if you take a job in the publicly-funded sector, then the relevant FoI laws will apply. If you don’t like this, get a different job.

      Any other interpretation of what I may or may not think is entirely a product your own imagination.

    • Latimer, a citizen of the UK, said


      The limit of my point is that if you take a job in the publicly-funded sector, then the relevant FoI laws will apply. If you don’t like this, get a different job.

      Any other interpretation of what I may or may not think is entirely a product your own imagination.

      And how exactly can you demand FOIA documents from the USA if you are not a citizen of the USA ???

      People will laugh at you if you were to try that stunt.

    • @webbie asks

      ‘And how exactly can you demand FOIA documents from the USA if you are not a citizen of the USA ???’

      I don’t imagine that I can. I have never thought that anyone other than a US citizen could use the US FOIA . Nor that a non-UK citizen could use the slightly different UK law in the UK. But whether I as an individual could apply for such records in the US is irrelevant…there are 300 million others who could. Similarly – as a UK citizen, I could apply under UK law for UK records.

      And exactly who can use the legislation in which territory is irrelevant to the general point that being a subject of the FoI laws is part of your contract of employment as public servant. It comes with the territory. If you envisage that this could become burdensome or that you plan to conduct your work in a way where FoI revelations would be embarrassing, then the easy answer is to take a different job where they don’t apply.

      Surely this is not hard to understand. You don’t like being subject to FoI?…don’t take a publicly funded job. Simples.

    • “. But whether I as an individual could apply for such records in the US is irrelevant…there are 300 million others who could.”

      And you have a dozen or so kranky foreign krankpots on a USA-based blog commenting section making demands. How pathetic.

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘The FOIA is codified at 5 U.S.C. Section 552. “Any person” can file a FOIA request, including U.S. citizens, foreign nationals, organizations, associations, and universities. ‘ http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/guide.html

      webby is aggressively and laughably wrong yet again.

    • Just like anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Prize, anyone can file whatever they want. That’s why I said a foreigners request would get laughed at and then ignored. Jeez, you look at a US senator or representatives web site and many of them prohibit online questions from US citizens not from their state or district.

      The Aussie lives in some delusional fantasy land where he thinks he is the chief of all hydrologists, and people fall in line with what he proclaims.

      • David Springer

        Evidently Paul Pukite doesn’t understand the difference between a blog and a legal document. That would explain a lot. But it shouldn’t be any surprise since he doesn’t seem to understand the difference between a blog and peer reviewed literature either.

    • Robert I Ellison

      The law is clear on the point – and subject to judicial review. The central tenet of natural justice is equality before the law. That’s why the lady wears a blindfold. Notwitstanding webby’s incorrigible and incredible rants.

      Judy – I would suggest you check most of webby’s recent rants – and perhaps many other under thus post Certain denizens gone well off the reservation. In webby’s case it is well off the planet.

    • @webbie

      If you have a problem with the way the FoI law in your country is written, go take it up with your legislators. They are the ones who passed it into your law not me. You are trying to shoot the messenger.

      And if you find is terms irksome, either stop using work time to indulge in embarrassing activities or get another job.

    • @webbie

      Even if the local pub were my home office – which it is not – the relevance of your remarks completely escapes me.

      How would where I conducted my business in the UK have any effect on the applicability of the US’s FoI law to US ‘public servants’?

      And I think that the relevant US authorities might take a dim view of anybody who actively sought to evade their responsibilities in the manner you describe. I rather imagine your legislature passed the law with the expectation that it would be adhered to – and penalties to enforce it if needed.

      But if the FoI requirements are indeed too onerous for you, get another job.

    • To the moderator:
      Thanks for snipping the rude (and inaccurate) comment which occasioned Latimer Alder’s response at 8:59 am.

      Joseph Joubert wrote, “The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.” Sadly, WebHub’s behavior on this sub-thread (at least) has not been in accord with that precept.

    • Lattie is always talking about his discussions on AGW with the blokes at the pub. That’s why he thinks he is such a great writer, the way he can affect such a casual air and speak for the common man.

      It is great that the mention of a pub is cause for deletion.

      The uncertainty monster is loudest when it comes to subjective opinions.

    • @webbie

      But I am able to distinguish between ‘work time’ and ‘me time’. The pub is for ‘me time’. ‘Work time’ is for work. Your suggestion that I use the pub as my home office was downright wrong. I slip in there of an evening with herself and the dogs to mark the break between the two. And at the weekends (‘me time’) we occasionally go there to watch the big screen football match.

      Your fears over the impact of FoI causing you embarrassment will be assuaged if you are able to reliably make the same distinction. It isn’t hard.

      The latest from the Dog and Duck fyi is that the denizens therein have only just finished laughing about the Ship of Fools. You will recall some hapless warmists were trapped by the disappeared ice and had to call for rescue lest they got home late for tea. Perhaps the funniest part was that they eventually arrived back – to a good ticking off from their Mums who had kept supper warm for them – some weeks after they would have had they stayed with their original vessel. Gaia was obviously in playful mood down there and wasn’t going to be trifled with.

    • Lattie is a touch defensive.

    • @webster

      Whatever.

      We’re done on this one.

  22. R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist

    Some may find this interesting. A note penned yesterday from M. Mann’s legal counsel:

    “The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columb…ia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief.

    Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true.

    Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process.

    February 22, 2014
    Roger D. McConchie
    Barrister and Solicitor
    Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann”

    • David L. Hagen

      R. Gates. Please provide a source, preferably with a link if posted.

    • David L. Hagen | February 23, 2014 at 9:00 pm |

      While I’m not R. Gates, Skeptical Warmist, it took me less than a minute with a Google search to find the passage as a comment on ScienceBlogs.

      I didn’t find the original source, but with the dross of disinformation floating around from WUWT, CEI and Skydragon Slayers and their ilk, it’s hard to find anything true or accurate.

    • Ah. There it is. M. Mann’s Facebook page apparently has it, as cited purportedly by Rabett and others.

  23. Michael; if you want them, file an FOIA, and stop being a lazy little hysteric. It’s not hard. I FOIAed our Board of Regents.

    But, of course, it does eliminate one’s anonymity, and a lot of people don’t have the cojones for that. It’s much safer to spew vitriol anonymously.

  24. (the goal of Judith suing would be).”…that she will drop Curry vs. Mann—if he drops Mann vs. Steyn. It’s a kind of mutually assured destruction for censorship.”

    Robert Tracinski has a nice little pipe dream going there, but he seems to be treating real live people (namely Judith)…as if she were a chess piece (the queen naturally :-), I can’t imagine anything more stressful than getting oneself mired in a wildly expensive lawsuit (of course Mann’s expenses are covered, thank you) with wildly unpredictable results.

    Moreover, I think Judith is absolutely right not to sue. Let Mann play the role of the thin skinned, paranoid Captain Queeg of climate science. He’s so good at it.

    Mann’s the sole author of his own coming misfortunes. Couldn’t happen to a creepier guy.

  25. Free speech has limits. Mann has a right to sue for defamation because the argument went public. It is an obvious case. It doesn’t matter if the science community supports him or not. That this case is echoed through the blogosphere simply reinforces Mann’s claims. Those that promote defamation need to take care. The blogosphere may collapse under the weight of high profile defamation suits and there will be collateral damage. Where would freedom of speech be then?

    Academic freedom went out the window when universities began relying on research overhead to pay administrators.

    • It would behove thin-skinned academics with enormous but fragile egos to keep out of the kitchen of public debate if they find it is too hot for them.

      What goes around comes around.

    • “Those that promote defamation need to take care.”

      I found it difficult to choose a representative silly statement as there are so many of them in your comment. Who’s “promoting defamation?” And aren’t you putting the ol’ cart before the horse? LIbel is only alleged. The courts will decide on the merits.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Stephen Bialkowski: That this case is echoed through the blogosphere simply reinforces Mann’s claims.

      Which of Mann’s claims do you refer to in that sentence, and how does that reinforcement work exactly? It seems to me that he exposed himself to the usual press ridicule when he started writing on a blog and writing editorials in newspapers. iirc (correct me if I am wrong) Steve McIntyre pointed out that one of Mann’s blog posts at RealClimate contradicted what Mann had written in the Supporting Online Material for an article in Science.

  26. And to think, Mann is actually held in high esteem by some.

    • Nobody here has actually defended either Mr Mann’s character or his ‘science’.

      This silent omission loudly echoes around the blogosphere…

    • You’re a real heavy-weight, aren’t you Lati?

    • @michael

      I think you make my point for me.

    • Lattie,
      The reason that Mann ‘s science is not singled out is because it is just one case out of thousands of other studies that are showing how aCO2 is warming the earth.

      I am finding that climate science is a rich topic that is still wide open to fresh kinds of analysis that all point in the same direction. The only thing that would be news is to find evidence suggesting that excess atmospheric CO2 is NOT the culprit.

    • @webbie

      Mr Mann takes issue with Mr Steyn because Mr. Steyn has made some remarks about Mr Mann’s character and his science that Mann beieves are untrue.

      So why are all those on who have rushed to Mr Mann’s defence not been taking every opportunity to show how wrong Mr Steyn’s remarks are?

      Instead they avoid the elephant in the living room and argue about relatively immaterial stuff.

      Draw your own conclusions….

      • David Springer

        @latimer

        Mr. Mann is incorrect. It’s Professor, or Doctor, or nothing but not Mr. Is that clear Ms. Alder?

    • “Instead they avoid the elephant in the living room and argue about relatively immaterial stuff.”

      Yes, the elephant in the living room is an eventual doubling of atmospheric CO2 that won’t go away any time soon.

      To most people the elephant is invisible because it is an odorless gas. To those who understand the science, it is an obvious concern.

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: The reason that Mann ‘s science is not singled out is because it is just one case out of thousands of other studies that are showing how aCO2 is warming the earth.

      Mann’s research relates to estimating the mean temperatures of parts of the Earth in times before there were accurate thermometers. Most of the research shows that the mean temperature of the Earth was higher at some past times of lower CO2 concentrations. Nothing in Mann’s research is related to “how aCO2 is warming the earth.”

    • No, wrong buddy.

      There is the Marcott study. There is the Pages 2K study. These are all substantiating arguments for AGW,

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “Nobody here has actually defended either Mr Mann’s character or his ‘science’.

      This silent omission loudly echoes around the blogosphere…”

      Please ! Le Pétomanne’s emissions are legendary.

    • @david springer

      I’ll agree with you that ‘Mann is incorrect’.

      And if you and he want to reflect on the reasons I chose not to use his academic ‘courtesy’ title, you are both welcome to do so.

      • David Springer

        There’s no reflection required. You call Mann “Mr. Mann” because you’re the south end of northbound horse. But we all knew that already. It was a rhetorical question.

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: There is the Marcott study.

      Yes there is. They backed off from the claim that made their paper interesting enough for Science. The part of their paper that was least unreliable showed that the Earth was warmer multiple times in the past 10,000 years than it is now.

  27. Worst comments section I’ve seen on this site. Feels like it’s been invaded by HuffPost readers – angry, angry people..

    • If you had to defend Mann you’d be angry, too. In fact, I’m pretty sure Mann himself is one of these angry commentators. He loves his sock puppets.

    • True. One wishes that someone would moderate all the crap. But then, who could be so cruel to ask someone to have to read it all?

  28. “Hugh [Hewitt] brought up the Secretary of State’s [J0hn Kerry's] preoccupation with global non-warming rather than actual burning…” ~Mark Steyn

    Sort of like the fixation of the Obama regime on an insignificant video in the wake of Benghazi?

  29. I put the following comment on WUWT yesterday:

    1. This lawsuit is about whether it can be fairly said that Mann did something “fraudulent,” or “molested and tortured data” in a scientifically discreditable sense. Everything else is a diversion.
    2. A pleading is not evidence; it is merely a claim about what the party hopes to establish. Clearly judges are lenient when it comes to interpreting the codes relating to a lawyer’s duty to verify the basis of a claim, since most claims fail and lawyers are rarely (never, in my experience) punished for filing even very frivolous claims.
    3. If Jones “replicated Mike’s Nature trick,” and Muir Russell gave an opinion that exonerated Jones of any “fraud” in that endeavour, then Muir Russell also indirectly gave an opinion exonerating Mike, to the extent that they used the same methods. This supports Mann’s defense, to the extent that Muir Russell’s opinion is reliable.
    4. A counterclaim has the same status as a claim. The Plaintiff by Counterclaim (Steyn) has the same onus of proof as any Plaintiff, and the Defendant by Counterclaim (Mann) has the same defenses as any Defendant. If Steyn truly believes this is a “pure” free-speech case, then he would have no grounds for a counterclaim; he would have to acknowledge that Mann has the same free-speech defense to the counterclaim as Steyn claims for himself in his defense to the original Claim. So Steyn’s counterclaim must logically be understood as a pleading “in the alternative”: Mann’s claim should be dismissed on First-Amendment and Anti-SLAPP grounds, or in the alternative, if these defenses are not available to Steyn then they are also not available to Mann.
    5. A plaintiff may claim any amount of damages he wishes; if successful, a court will still only approve an amount that has been proven as damages. (Does Steyn honestly believe he has suffered $20 million in damages from Mann’s lawsuit? If not, then is he guilty of filing false pleadings, with all of the supposed consequences thereof? See #2 above…) The amount of the damages claimed by Steyn are only relevant when it comes to calculating “costs” (penalties for the losing side) at the end of the trial – on the theory that if you stand to lose $20 million you will pay more for legal assistance, and therefore are entitled to a higher schedule of costs.
    6. Steyn’s counterclaim, however entertaining it might be, might not be wise legal strategy. If he fails to prove the defamation claimed, or if he fails to prove damages, he could be liable for costs on the Counterclaim. Those costs could well negate any costs he would otherwise have won by being successful in the original action by Mann.
    7. Buying gift certificates to support Steyn’s lawsuit might have the consequence of making it impossible for Steyn to prove any damages on his counterclaim. That is, if his “business” actually improves consequent to the lawsuit, he will be hard pressed to establish that he suffered any specific damages.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Thylacine,
      1/Jones did not replicate Mann’s trick. He mistakenly thought it.
      2/ The inquiry specifically cast aspersions on that Jones graph.

    • tingtg -

      So I see that you were ducking “the issues” here also.

      That’s a lot o’ ducking.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      You don’t see past your corneas, Korny.
      No ducking, Ducky!

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Since you’re oblivious to what you are doing, I might as well spell it out.

      You didn’t even point to something I needed to address.

    • Thy’s #3 is rich with irony and further revelations. I love ‘to the extent’, esp. the second use in that paragraph.

      #4, raising stakes. Moneybags Mann is bluffing.

      #5, rising damages. There seem to be other suckers at the table.

      #6&7, yep, stakes rising.
      ================

    • what tingtg ducks, kim ignores.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Joshua, for what reason would any of those need to be addressed or opposed by me?

    • tingtg -

      There are none so blind….

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      yes, Ducky.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Joshua barks like a timorous chihuahua, but when push comes to shove, scuttles away, tail tucked.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Willard whines continuously I must address something here too.
      This is apparently what prevents Willard from answering a simple question
      on if all the items listed by Mann are to be considered exonerations or not.

      This sentence prevents Willard
      “Everything else is a diversion”
      However, that did not prevent Willard from insisting about the issue of number of exonerations in the list, until he hit a bump.

      The bump was, “If Mann says that he is exonerated from trickery by the CRU scientists being exonerated in the email matter of “hide the decline” and Jones’ trick, will Mann claim that his trick is the same as Jones’ trick?

      From that point on, dear Willard refused to answer about the issue of the exonerations… all diversions now!

    • “cast asperions” – this

      Due diligence may be required.

  30. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ is a phony stamp of approval justifying the Leftist and liberal media demonization of Bush, evil oil companies, Judeo/Christian ethics and American principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility, to accomplish a takeover of what’s left of America’s free enterprise economy.

    • Walt Allensworth

      And there you have it.
      Write far more succinctly than I have done.
      You could add in something about evil people exploiting people’s natural inclination to feel guilty about living and breathing, but it would only make it longer.

  31. We are not talking about “back and forth of research” or calling people names, but urging friends to sue critics, trying to get editors fired (and succeeding), manipulating the peer-review process, circumventing IPCC procedures and rules, truncating data (the trick to hide the decline), manipulating data, hiding inconvenient non-supportive results (R2 and other statistics), which are of course truly embarrassing. But they are not part of normal acceptable scientific process.

  32. Pingback: Judith Curry, Free Speech Champion | NoFrakkingConsensus

  33. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Personal Abuse Considered Harmful
      … Harmful to the Cause of Conservatism

    Mark Steyn’s Statement

    “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

    Just as the Heartland Institute (HI) has (commendably!) removed its Unabomber billboards, both National Review (NR) and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) have (commendably!) removed Mark Steyn’s accusations against Michael Mann.

    Proposition I  “Unabomber”-based anti-science billboards and “Sandusky”-based anti-science rhetoric alike have zero basis in rationality and science.

    Proposition II  The public embrace of “Unabomber” anti-science billboards and “Jerry Sandusky” anti-science criticism by high-profile institutions such as HI, NR, and CEI has caused American conservatism to appear grossly stupid, both within the US and around the world.

    Proposition III  To remediate their harm to the cause of conservatism, the institutions of HI, NR, and CEI should jointly and publicly admit their mistakes, pledge to refrain from further “Unabomber/Sandusky” rhetoric, and (in the case of NR and CEI) apologize to Michael Mann for the gratuitously personal elements of Mark Steyn’s criticism.

    Recommendation  American conservatism in general, and HI/NR/CEI in particular, should publicly renounce its ill-advised embrace, in recent years, of willfully ignorant, gratuitously offensive, “Unabomber/Sandusky” varieties of anti-science criticism … on the pragmatic grounds that ill-considered faux-conservative anti-science rhetoric has grossly weakened public respect for conservatism as a rational and science-respecting political movement.

    Common Sense  Nature nowadays is showing humanity plainly — as multiple independent scientific observations plainly affirm — that Michael Mann’s climate-change hockey stick is real.

    That sobering natural reality is (in the long-run) of far more consequence than any amount of personal abuse ever could be, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to Michael Mann for being the first to show us plainly this face of Nature.

    Obviously  Conservatism that can respond to continuing scientific advances and sobering Hockey-Stick realities solely with personal abuse and statistical quibbles is just plain doomed, eh Climate Etc readers?

    That’s ordinary conservative common-sense, eh Climate Etc lassies and laddies?

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Fanny, you’re forgetting that the same institution that cleared Mikey cleared Jerry – and it looks to be with the same amount of due diligence!

    • “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

      “Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

      “Mann must be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

      so, did Steyn compare Mann to a molester. Not exactly, he said that it could be said.

      • It’s a semantic issue: does drawing a logical parallel constitute “comparing”? What about using analogy? Does the semantic outcome depend on the venue?

        I remember when the issue first arose, many of Mann’s defenders were treating it as though he’d been called a child molester. AFAIK many people’s minds actually work that way. Is somebody like Steyn responsible for their failure to understand logic and/or analogy? Does it depend on the venue?

    • mosher makes an excellent point -

      so, did Steyn compare Mann to a molester. Not exactly, he said that it could be said.

      There’s no reason to assume that Steyn was comparing Mann to a child molester.

      That the analogy made a specific reference to a child molester, and made specific reference to molestation and torture, isn’t particularly meaningful.

      He might just as easily has said that Mann’s statistical methodology was flawed. In fact, he probably was going to go with that, but got distracted and just went with the molestation analogy by pure chance.

      ‘Prolly just all a coincidence.

      Yeah. That’s the ticket.

    • There are two prongs to this antelope, er, analogy; the similar treatment of the two colleagues by Penn State, and the data molestation bit. The institution is impaled on only one of these horns, the Mann on both.
      =====================

    • I see a clear parallel with the statement (made by many at the time, including me) that Iraq was going to be “another Viet Nam”. Of course it couldn’t be another Viet Nam, Iraq is desert and Viet Nam is jungle.

    • Joshua:

      Do you really read the text as accusing Mann of molesting children? I think it is clear to any reader that Steyn is accusing Mann of molesting data (not children) and making a funny based on the word “molest”. It is funny. Why? Because they are both from the same University and were both investigated by the University.

      That particular statement is only libel if Steyn was actually accusing Mann of molesting children. As to molesting data, either that is an opinion or truth is a complete defense. Mann loses in my opinion.

    • RickA -

      Do you really read the text as accusing Mann of molesting children?

      No. I have no idea why you think that would be how I interpret the comment.

      I think that it is clearly an attempt to demean Mann by comparing him to a child molester. He could have used myriad comparisons. That he chose the one the used was not some kind of an accident. It’s of the same level as referring to Sandusky as Mann’s “colleague.”

      We see “skeptics,” day in and day out, very concerned about (at least in their interpretation) being compared to holocaust deniers. But yet they seem very much unconcerned with similar comparisons from their side of the great climate divide – such as that of Steyn’s.

      …and making a funny based on the word “molest”. It is funny. Why? Because they are both from the same University and were both investigated by the University.

      The wordplay is not lost on me. I like wordplay. I think that a lot of people take all of this stuff waaaaaay too seriously. But that doesn’t remove that wordplay from the context.

      That particular statement is only libel if Steyn was actually accusing Mann of molesting children. As to molesting data, either that is an opinion or truth is a complete defense. Mann loses in my opinion.

      I have no particular opinion on the legal debate. I see reasonable arguments on both sides, from a legal perspective.

      But I also don’t particularly care about the legal debate.

      I see the hubub about Steyn vs. Mann as more tribalism, as more personality politics.

      I disagree with all the drama-queening that see this case as being some kind of test of the integrity of our legal system, or of the durability of our rights to free-speech. Such “alarmist” reactions seem to me, to be indicative of motiva… reaso…., and lacking in due skeptical scrutiny. It’s a court case that will get decided on any number of factors that are particular to that particular court case. Enlarging it as an event of existential significance for our society seems to me like just more ink-blotting in the climate blogosphere. People see in the legal battle what they want to see.

      But in the climate war aspect of the case, what I see is same ol’ same ol’ – the same people who protest about insults and “scientific intolerance” and who recommend putting on “big boy pants,” then selectively turning a blind eye to essentially the same sorts of behavior on their side, and justifying that selectivity with fallacious reasoning that justifies, in their eyes, some sort of differences in kind.

      Of course, the reverse phenomena are just as much in play.

      Steyn’s input here can, in no way, IMO, advance the state of the science or further progress towards understanding the range of outcomes from increased ACO2, for evaluating the cost/benefit analysis of different policy options, for evaluating how to do a useful risk analysis here in the face of the uncertainties.

      And Mann’s input is largely (although less completely) counterproductive in much the same manner.

      That’s the bottom line, IMO.

    • FOMD has the same relationship with the truth as Mann

      Here is the Mann98 Hockey Stick

      Yet here is the Nature figure the Clown cites

      Only a fool or a charlatan would state that the reconstructions are similar.
      Note the reappearance of the Medieval Warming Period, which Mann98 wiped out.

    • Joshua says:

      “Enlarging it as an event of existential significance for our society seems to me like just more ink-blotting in the climate blogosphere. People see in the legal battle what they want to see.”

      I agree with that. I think a lot of skeptics are hoping this case will be a proxy for the disagreement over climate forecasting or the hockey stick or whatever. I don’t think this case will prove or disprove the hockey stick or shed any light on Mann’s research.

      It will shed light on whether Steyn defamed Mann (I don’t think he did). That is about it. It is merely fun to watch because of Mann’s hubris.

    • That wasn’t Steyn’s statement, that was written by Rand Simberg. Steyn wrote:

      “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”

      See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn

    • “Mark Steyn’s Statement”

      That was not, in fact, Mark Steyn’s statement. It was the statement of a writer at CEI which Steyn cited, and consequently himself suggested might be over the top.

      If you don’t even know who said what, how are you able to form an opinion on the merits of the case?

    • AJ222 and Bartemis:

      Sorry if I attributed the statement to the wrong person. That is what I get for injecting myself into Steven Mosher and Joshua’s conversation. I thought, from their comments, that Steyn made that statement.

      What I said still stands as regards Simberg’s statement defaming Mann.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Stephen Mosher: did Steyn compare Mann to a molester. Not exactly, he said that it could be said.

      furthermore, he drew the explicit difference between Sandusky’s actual acts towards children and Mann’s actual acts towards data.

      What makes the parallel apt is that Sandusky and Mann were both “exonerated” by extremely superficial reviews conducted by committees with the same chairman (PSU president, since resigned due to negligence in the Sandusky investigation), and both reports cited the money brought in (football revenue, federal grant money) by the targets of the investigations.

    • Matthew makes an excellent point:

      What makes the parallel apt is that Sandusky and Mann were both “exonerated”…

      Yeah, that’s the ticket. He wasn’t comparing Mann to a child molester. That aspect of the “parallel” is just pure coincidence.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Mathew Marler,
      According to wiki: after resigning, Graham “Spicy Basil” Spanier is currently

      “a tenured faculty member at Penn State, but has been placed on leave with pay following his indictment in November 2012 on charges of perjury, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice[1] in the Sandusky sex abuse case.[2]“

    • Joshua and others are getting confused about the nature of the interest in this case. For skeptics (and even a few lukewarmers), the interest is in the discovery, the material Mann will be obliged to produce for trial.

      As a progressive liberal, I find it difficult to understand FOMD’s ‘advice’ to conservatives. I would think both conservatives and skeptics would be more apt to heed such advice if FOMD were to start by addressing the level of vitriol in Michael’s comments. He could then address the level of idiocy in Michael’s comments. And then he could say ‘this is how it’s done.’

    • “the level of vitriol in Michael’s comments” – Fuller.

      Nicely ironic cocern troll from a master of the art.

      Steyn flings accusations of fraud and allusions to paedoplhila against a scientist, and all is good – I call that peron a scumbag, and Fuller is wringing his hands over “vitriol”.

      New day, same sh!t.

    • Don’t cry that Peron a scumbag.
      ==================

    • thankgod for the typing monitor.

    • Xing A Paragrab

      “Harmful to the Cause of Conservatism”. Nice try, Baghdad Fanny, but if that’s the case, why is Mann struggling to silence Steyn? Why prevent him from “harming” his own cause?

      And are you saying personal abuse *isn’t* considered harmful to liberalism? That seems to be true, since they employ a hypocritical double standard. You don’t seem concerned about Mann personally abusing Dr. Curry.

  34. The fraud is in the certainty of the attribution of the recent temperature rise. The more the public understands of this trial, the more they will understand the degree to which the Piltdown Mann’s Crook’t Stick has shafted them.

    Oldie but goodie, misunderstood at climateaudit.org: Hoist by his own retard.
    =========

  35. Mann in 1998 hid the natural incline, the MWP. Nevermind that the tip of his blade is a bit blunted now, the shafting was in the straightness of the shaft. This was destruction of history, not just destruction of a proxy as in the ‘hide the decline’ fiasco.

    By the way, completely tangential, it persistently amuses me that hoi polloi misunderstand ‘hide the decline’ to mean declining temperatures. I expect this misunderstanding to continue to persist, deeply richening the irony.
    ================

  36. I’ve been reading DEFENDANT STEYN’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT, and found some pretty funny things:

    25. Denies the allegations in Paragraph Twenty-Five of the
    Amended Complaint, except admits that there was an investigation by former FBI Director Freeh concluding that Penn State and its highest officers had helped cover up the serial child rape perpetrated by Dr Mann’s colleague Jerry Sandusky.

    [...]

    98. Denies the allegation that Defendant Steyn compared Dr Mann to a convicted child molester, and denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of other allegations in Paragraph Ninety-Eight of the Amended Complaint.

    [...]

    103. Denies the allegations in Paragraph One-Hundred-And-Three of the Amended Complaint, except admits that Dr Mann’s colleague Sandusky is presently serving a lengthy gaol sentence for child rape and multiple other sex crimes against children.

    [...]

    111. Denies the allegations in Paragraph One-Hundred-And-Eleven of the Amended Complaint, and feels Plaintiff is going round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, like the circles that you find in the tree-rings of your mind.

    [...]

    134. [... (quoted above)] It was also designed, at a time of the IPCC and others’ growing disenchantment with the “hockey stick” and the public’s lack of interest in Plaintiff’s book The Hockey Stick And The Climate Wars: Dispatches From The Front Lines (published shortly before this action), to re-ignite his dimming celebrity and create artificially a new “front line” for him to pose on.

  37. Judith closes with: “Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.”

    Brava!

  38. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    kim makes a good start … “The more the public understands of  this trial  continuing advances in climate-change science, the more they [the public] will understand …

    …  the sobering reality that global heating is real, serious, and accelerating … a reality that is *FAR* more significant than petty squabbles and ideology-driven quibbles.

    Rhetoric by Kim, science by FOMD!

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Heh, you mean real, beneficial, and pausing if not fading.
      ========================

    • barn E. rubble

      I’m surprised at how long it took ‘A fan of *MORE* pharmaceuticals’ to chip in here . . . perhaps a relapse to reality could be blamed. But it appears all’s back to ‘normal’ for him now . . .

  39. I have the feeling that no matter who prevails in the first trial this is eventually headed to the supreme court.

  40. I went and read the entire pleading as posted on Mann’s lawyers website. The erroneous quotation spotted by Steve McIntyre is a quite serious matter, as it is the only proffered ‘fact’ evidence in support of a major contention. That the lawyers did not verify the misquote directly is stunning, and bad for them professionally. They had an obligation to do so. Rely on SkS?! It is worse for Mann, because it provides direct court documented support for his counter suit, which Mann cannot avoid by just dropping his own.

    • I wonder if they’ll be allowed to file another “amended” pleading, and whether, if so, the impartiality of the court could be called into question. Not just on appeal, but in the broader media. Interesting times.

    • There’s a bridge out on the FS&PC RR.
      ===============================

    • Oops, this comment got rerouted onto the wrong subthread. It’s supposed to be a pellucid response to David Young below.
      ================

    • Some people think this is not a big deal.
      Others think it is.

      Perhaps an ethics violation should be filed to determine who is right.
      I love it when blog wars become legal issues.

    • kim, I didn’t think that pellucidity was your forte. Or fifte, even.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      SkepticalScience today edited that post and another.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Rud Istvan: The erroneous quotation spotted by Steve McIntyre is a quite serious matter, as it is the only proffered ‘fact’ evidence in support of a major contention. That the lawyers did not verify the misquote directly is stunning, and bad for them professionally.

      How bad for them professionally is it? Surely they are not the first attorneys to have been mislead by something given to them by their clients that looked legitimate? I should think that what is potentially bad for them professionally would be what they do next?

      This from a guy almost totally naive in legal affairs. I was a defendant in small claims court and served on two juries, but that’s about it.

    • Matt -

      2. A pleading is not evidence; it is merely a claim about what the party hopes to establish. Clearly judges are lenient when it comes to interpreting the codes relating to a lawyer’s duty to verify the basis of a claim, since most claims fail and lawyers are rarely (never, in my experience) punished for filing even very frivolous claims.

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/#comment-463781

    • This is not sworn, so does not rise to the level of perjury. But it is a major pleadings matter. Attorneys as officers of the court have an ethical obligation to insure their submissions are accurate. Errors of omission are expected. Errors of commission are not. Most important is Steyn’s ability to use the misrep in his favor in the countersuit.

    • Errors of commission are not.

      The evidence of which is…..?

      Keep working on it, Rud – but it likes you’ve been schooled.

    • er…. looks like….

      but you understood that. You’ve written books.

  41. Dr. Curry’s understanding of the law appears to be every bit as shallow as her understanding of climate these days.

    I wonder why she bothers…

    • Magma

      I suppose you consider your “understanding of climate” to be superior to that of Dr. Curry.

      How so?

      Just curious.

      Max

  42. I didn’t realize that a group of press outlets had filed a friend of the court brief in Virginia. That is interesting and shows that there may be big cracks in the attempt of the Team to present a united establishment front and essentially provide a blanket of secrecy for Team members.

    Michael and Joshua, Please get a life. Your comments here contrast very unfavorably with Steve McIntyre’s. You two are a paradigm for what’s wrong with the climate debate. Steve is an example of probity and clarity in that debate.

    • Steve is a more a paradigm of weird obsession and m0tivated reas0ning.

    • @Michael | February 23, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
      I’m thinking it is pretty obvious to everyone is that he is CAGWer’s worst nightmare. He is intelligent, knowledgeable, and the thing I envy most about him – his laser-like focus on details.

    • McIntyre is null in the debate. All he does is correct small mistakes that scientists occasionally make. It doesn’t matter in the greater scheme of things.

      That’s why I refer to him as Null of McIntyre as far as the science is concerned. In terms of his rhetoric, he is a non-entity because no one cares about that aspect.

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: McIntyre is null in the debate. All he does is correct small mistakes that scientists occasionally make. It doesn’t matter in the greater scheme of things.

      That is not true. He demonstrated Mann’s over-reliance on a small set of the proxies (as well as finding that Mann’s comments on that over-reliance were contradictory), and his comments on Steig et al showed that Steig et al got their widely disseminated main point wrong.

      Your comment is as useful as saying “In the great family of hydrocarbons and such”, the physical properties of ethanol and methanol are nearly identical; or that 95 and 99 octane gas are nearly identical. “Small” details frequently make a great difference, and the “small” mistakes of Mann and others made a great difference in the outcomes of their work.

    • Really, Webby?

      Tell it to Gergis et al, whose paper sank without trace following Jean S (later supplemented by McIntyre) eviscerating it on CA. Or Marcott.

      Indeed, tell it to Michael Mann, whose Hockey Stick was put through the chipper by McIntyre and McKitrick, and has never been reconstituted since.

    • Webby

      Clouds can not drive the system. They are a feedback factor, not some external forcing function.

      Huh?

      Sez who?

      And on what basis?

      Get serious, Webby.

      The ONLY thing that “drives the system” is the sun.

      But a 5% change in cloud cover (for whatever reason) has twice the impact as all the greenhouse forcing since 1750.

      You may not know why or how long- or short-term natural fluctuations in cloud cover can change and are changing global average temperature, but you cannot make the flat statement that “clouds cannot drive the system”.

      That would be silly (an I’m sure you don’t want to be silly).

      Max

  43. Somebody better get this finished soon as they’re risking being in court when 2014 sets the record for hottest year.

    • JCH

      2014 the “record hottest year”?

      Not likely.

      Max

    • Over at WUWT, the ole ENSO meter is still leaning towards La Nina. Of course, past performance isn’t a guarantee of future results.


    • jim2 | February 23, 2014 at 3:45 pm |

      Over at WUWT, the ole ENSO meter is still leaning towards La Nina. Of course, past performance isn’t a guarantee of future results.

      What bit about the oscillation in El Nino/Southern Oscillation do you not comprehend?

      Do you believe that it will stop oscillating?

      We have the Flat Earth Society, then the Flat Temperature Society, and now we have somebody that says the ENSO is flat-lined.

    • @WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 23, 2014 at 4:23 pm
      Just a simple observation, WHT. You can go to WUWT and check it out yourself. Don’t take my word for it. LOL.


    • jim2 | February 23, 2014 at 4:28 pm |

      @WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | February 23, 2014 at 4:23 pm
      Just a simple observation, WHT. You can go to WUWT and check it out yourself. Don’t take my word for it. LOL.

      Don’t have to check it. The ENSO oscillates. And it oscillates about zero, which means it goes warm and cool about a baseline value of a neutral temperature.

      Otherwise they wouldn’t call it an oscillation. What is with you people that like to challenge every little established bit of physics? You’re like toddlers that say NO! to everything they are told.

    • Webby

      You seem to have this notion that ENSO fluctuations are a “multidecadal zero sum game” and can have no impact on our planet’s overall energy balance.

      We know these fluctuations can skew the record of global average temperature, as they did not only for the record year 1997/98, but also for the entire late 20thC, and as they are doing in the opposite direction today.

      Now we both know that the only net source of energy to our climate system is the sun.

      We also know that clouds reflect a significant amount of incoming solar radiation out of our climate system back into space.

      And we know that the impact of a 5% change in cloud cover would be around twice the forcing from all the CO2 humans have emitted since 1750, so a small change in cloud cover is as important as a major change in CO2 forcing (the supposed “climate control knob”).

      We also know (Palle et al.) that cloud cover decreased over the latter part of the 20thC and increased again since the turn of the millennium, at the same time as our planet shifted from rapid warming to slight cooling..

      This coincides with a shift from large El Ninos to La Ninas, a shift which is cited as a partial reason for the current “pause” and is believed to have resulted in increased cloud cover.

      See a pattern there, Webby?

      And is this all included in your handy-dandy model?

      How about longer term cyclical changes (PDO, AMO, etc.)?

      Or does your model ASS-U-ME that these are all a “zero sum game”?

      And, if so, over what time periods? Three decades? A century? Longer?

      Max

    • Robert I Ellison

      It is one of the silliest things imaginable to insist that ENSO is not biased to El Nino or La Nina over relevant periods. La Nina dominant to 1976, El Nino to 1998 and La Nina since and for the next decade to three. By coincidence – these are precisely the periods of negative, positive, negative PDO – and – wow – changes in trend in the global temperature record.

      Get a clue webby – this is not difficult.

    • Jim 2

      “Dancin’”.

      “Playin’”.

      Whatever.

      Max

    • There doesn’t have to be an El Nino for 2014 to be a hottest year. All that has to happen is a majority of months be on the north side of ONI. In other words, a failed El Nino could set a record.

      2010 is the hottest year. The Jan 2010 anomaly was 66. The Jan 2014 anomaly was 70, and the early part of the year is likely to be the coldest part of 2014 whereas the early art of 2010 was by far the warmest part of that year.

      Significant positive anomalies (coinciding with high negative loadings) indicate moderate southerly (V) anomalies just of the Central American coast, as well as anomalously high SST (S) and air tempeature (A) anomalies halfway between Australia and South America, as well as increased cloudiness (C) near the Philippines. Significant negative anomalies (coinciding with high positive loadings) indicate strong easterly (U) anomalies along the Equator and centered on the dateline. All of these anomalies support the diagnosis of La Niña-like conditions, even though the temperature anomalies described here are secondary compared to the better established anomalies along the Equatorial cold tongue. On the other hand, reduced cloudiness (C) west of Ecuador is consistent with El Niño rather than La Niña.

      Stay tuned for the next update by March 9th to see where the MEI will be heading next. El Niño came and went during the summer of 2012, not unlike 1953. This was followed by our first ENSO-neutral winter since 2003-04 (2005-06 was an ENSO-neutral winter, but much closer to La Niña, and dipped into La Niña rankings during March-April). In mid-2013, La Niña had its turn to come and go again, almost in a mirror-image of the 2012 sequence. While we have now reached the time of year when drastic transitions are much less common than in the first half of the calendar year, the upward jump of +0.7 standard deviations between July-August and September-October, as well as its subsequent drop of just over -0.4 sigma, indicate unusual volatility. While ENSO-neutral conditions are the safest bet for the next few months, a transition towards El Niño by mid- or late 2014 would not be surprising, perhaps even overdue. – Wolter, NOAA MEI

      El Nino probability drops a bit in the latest update here.

    • Clouds can not drive the system. They are a feedback factor, not some external forcing function.

      The only way that clouds can become an external forcing factor is if they somehow interact with variations in external radiation, ala Svensmark’s theory of cosmic ray cloud seeding. Yet, this has not been confirmed beyond being a second order effect at best.

      It would be more challenging if you skeptics possessed any kind of scientific intuition or insight.

    • Clouds can’t drive the system, but aerosols can. I see.

    • Robert I Ellison

      Clouds change with changing atmospheric and ocean circulation. They are a most important part of the climate system – determining the largest part of the variability of the energy budget of the planet in recent times.


    • jim2 | February 23, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
      Clouds can’t drive the system, but aerosols can. I see.

      Yes, Good for you. Now you are learning.

    • I think I don’t know aerosols, at alls.
      ================

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: We have the Flat Earth Society, then the Flat Temperature Society, and now we have somebody that says the ENSO is flat-lined.

      did you not read? He wrote that the index was tilting toward La Nina.

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: What is with you people that like to challenge every little established bit of physics?

      No one has challenged every little established bit of physics. But a bunch of us point out when particular assertions of your are wrong or empty. For an example of “empty”, you have frequently written that the ENSO oscillates about 0, without specifying the time durations over which it averages to 0. Clearly, from the historical record, the ENSO can be biased toward the high side or the low side for at least a decade. It can never be depended upon to cancel last year’s or last decade’s bias in the next year. It might, but there is not an established bit of physics to predict when it will do so.

    • Can you not infer?

      If the dunce keeps on saying it is tilting toward La Nina, that means he is inferring it will not cross zero. That is a most ridiculous assertion and is worthy of a Flat Earther.

      How can it not cross zero? It’s a freaking oscillation, and it has to cross zero. So these people have to challenge every last bit of physics including the fact that an oscillation has been observed since man has been monitoring the conditions.

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: If the dunce keeps on saying it is tilting toward La Nina, that means he is inferring it will not cross zero.

      That is your inference, not his implication, that “tilting” means “flat”.

  44. Having looked at MBH98/99 (at last), it is apparent that the sleight of hand around the first principal component, key to the notorious ‘stick’, is conducted in plain sight. The first PC arises from 20th century warming. As such, its relevance to proxy reconstructions for earlier periods is very questionable if, as the authors state, they believe the climate of the 20th century is exceptional as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions. The importance of the first reconstructed PC (for the proxies) is clear from MBH98 figure 5(a). It is the (heavily weighted) component responsible for depressing pre-20th century temperatures. A flawed piece of research, but transparently so. Of course, there appear to be a host of other issues surrounding withheld data, proxy tampering, selective reporting etc. Even so, one can only marvel at matters getting to this stage.

    • Yep, the fraud, er ‘sleight of hand’ is lying there in plain sight and has been all along. Agree with marveling at the drawn out denouement. It does help clarify whether the original mistake was deliberate or accidental. Unfortunately, the usefulness of this particular fraud so drowned out considerations of ethics and of science, that that original act by Mann is clouded in uncertainty.

      Maybe there was just a tide that led him on to misfortune.
      =========

    • OAS, you’re wrong to say the “first PC arises from 20th century warming.” There are actually numerous PC1s in MBH, but the one which has (rightly) received the most focus is NOAMER PC1. There’is no indication its shape has any connection to 20th century warming.

      You may find it helpful to read the series of posts I’m writing titled “Mann’s Screw Ups.” You can find a list of the posts I’ve written so far in the introductory post of the series, or you can read this post to learn what “PC1″ is.

    • barn E. rubble

      RE: OAS | February 23, 2014 at 1:26 pm
      “Having looked at MBH98/99 (at last), it is apparent that the sleight of hand around the first principal component, key to the notorious ‘stick’, is conducted in plain sight. . . .”

      Keep in mind when esteemed colleagues in climatology call your work ‘crap’ it means something different than when esteemed colleagues in *ANY OTHER FIELD* call your work ‘crap’. Similar to the trade marked ‘trick’ used only by (some) climatologists – present company excluded . . . and their disciples.

    • Of course, there appear to be a host of other issues surrounding withheld data, proxy tampering, selective reporting etc. Even so, one can only marvel at matters getting to this stage.

      I find it astonishing that Mann was able to get a PhD with such a poor grasp of statistics. And to continue publishing statistical papers with such elementary errors in them.

      Notwithstanding the rah-rah supporters here, it is pretty obvious to scientists on all sides of the climate-change discussion that Mann’s research is substandard. The CAGW types view him (rightly) as an embarrassment; his shoddy work has undermined a lot of competent research. I don’t understand why the climate science community in general does not disavow his work and cut their losses.

      One must remember that whether scientific work is good or bad does not depend on whether you get the right answer. Bad studies frequently get correct results. Good studies often get incorrect results. That’s because science is a process, not a set of results.

      So it makes no difference whether Mann is correct or not; his work is still bad science.

  45. Judith Curry

    Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.

    No doubt this is true.

    Michael Mann’s attempts to regain in the courts the credibility he has lost in the field of climate science with his discredited hockey stick will fail.

    But you are absolutely right in NOT entering into any kind of legal suit against Michael Mann – he may be a bit goofy himself, but he is supported by powerful “deep pockets”.

    Max

  46. Pingback: Judith Curry | Transterrestrial Musings

  47. At Realclimate Michael Mann (and Gavin) got the quote right and wrote of the CRU scientist as a separate entity than themselves.

    July 7th 2010 – Realclimate:

    “The main issue is that they conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously.” Mike & Gavin

    – See more at:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-muir-russell-report/

    so quite how it got messed up in the Mann response to Steyn, is anybody’s guess, lawyers just cut and pasting Skeptical Science? ;-)

  48. Failure to protect the interests of public universities and their faculty to be free to research controversial or divisive topics and to exchange and express thoughts and ideas in a zone of privacy, without fear of embarrassment by public disclosure, will damage an essential quality of American public universities.

    Warren Buffet and others have said, “Don’t do or say anything that you don’t want to see printed on the front page of your hometown newspaper.”

  49. This is a lecture by Eric Barron in 2007. I would describe it as gently and patiently hysterical:

    (No attempt to look at the accuracy of existing models, but a clear understanding of the world in 2090-2100 — when, of course, he won’t be around….) ….Lady in Red

    • Lady in Red

      I suffered through the you-tube for which you posted the link.

      Agree it is “gently and patiently (or patently?) hysterical”.

      OK. It was recorded during the CAGW glory days of Nobel Peace Prizes and even an Oscar – before Climategate, the ensuing other scandals and (most importantly) the unannounced (and unexpected) “pause”.

      The question arises: If the IPCC models were unable to predict the current “pause” in global warming, why in God’s name should we believe that they can project global temperatures (or their effects on US or global climate and its impacts on vegetation, etc.) to the year 2100?

      The answer: We shouldn’t, because they can’t.

      It’s just that simple.

      Max

    • I very much like ‘gently and patiently hysterical’. It has a quality of suspending as does the gentle rain.
      ==================

  50. There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding “academic freedom.”

    Academic freedom is the freedom a professor with tenure has to pursue research and teaching without political interference from the university. There is no card blanche freedom to say whatever (s)he chooses. Rather, the professor can speak out on issues that may be unpopular with the university. The university can make life difficult for the professor, smaller office, no clerical staff help, try to overload the professor with teaching. But these are subject to arbitration which is not a slam dunk for the university administration.

    As I see the S&M brouhaha, this is a public viewing of name calling. The usual standards for libel are in play. If I knowingly say something false and someone calls me on it, then no libel. I am or am not a Nobel laureate. I was or was not exonerated by so-and-so committee. If the basis of my knowingly false statements are within the academic life and records which include emails, then those are available for discovery. I don’t think one needs a supreme court to decide such a matter.

    Mann’s shoddy science is not at issue. Discovery is. It would appear that Mann’s emails may contain both information regarding “knowingly false” and data manipulation in manufacturing his hockey stick. In the first case, this is a court case. If the latter, then he would be out on his ear for academic fraud; new President or no.

    All that universities worry about is reputation. The greater reputation, the more the donations, the larger one’s endowment. A university with a poor reputation has no endowment and is living financially hand to mouth.

    So the universities and the media people square off for vastly different agendas all in the name of “academic freedom”; which in this case, it ain’t.
    For universities, keeping one’s reputation from prying eyes and the paparazzi. No dirty laundry here. We only hire the best and brightest. The media people are always looking for “the story” that will get them their Pulitzer Prize.

    S&M are somewhat the pawns in this not so cerebral chess game.

  51. JC:
    “The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior.”

    +1

  52. The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund web page is Copyright © Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 2012. All Rights Reserved. Is there any relation between the two other than sharing an IT department? Don’t know.

    From the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s IRS form 990 …

    “Briefly describe the organization’s mission.

    TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCIES NATIONWIDE ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; TO ASSIST THOSE WHO SPEAK OUT ON BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS; AND TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY AND INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES AND … ”
    LEGAL: PEER PROVIDES LEGAL COUNSEL, ASSISTANCE AND REPRESENTATION TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHO MAY FACE RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT FOR HIGHER STANDARDS OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY, ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT.”

    http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/931/102/2012-931102740-0958f1e2-9.pdf

  53. The “real” issue on the FOIA is that there are many who would like to (continue to) take the intent of the requester into account before granting or denying the request.

    Wegman’s e-mails were released from George Mason promptly as I recall.

    Those with deep pockets can make it a litigious and expensive process, thus counteracting the intent of the FOI law.

    One of the environmental movement’s favorite weapons has always been the courts (rightly or wrongly), it is not surprising to see it here. They are very skilled at it.

  54. Reblogged this on tannngl and commented:
    Michael Mann may be in trouble.
    It’s time to let him fall or stand on his own.

  55. Deep Climate has already made you look like the fool that you are Ms. Curry.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/

    • ‘Thus I have come to the conclusion that complete evacuation of the human species from the planet is the only solution that will yield anything even vaguely resembling an early Holocene era planetary ecological and biological diversity. And indeed, I have worked out the necessary global technological and engineering actions required to produce that desired result’

      T L Elifritz @ Real Climate 2 Jan 2014

    • I’m flattered and honored. Google SpaceX BFR and MCT. Read my essays if you like, but I was rather more interested in your response to Deep Climate’s and John Mashey’s exposure of fraud and incompetence.

    • TLE
      Dr Curry is deeply respected here and your are not. Who ever you are. She is deeply respected by Congress and the APS. Who ever you are?
      Scott

    • Thomas Lee Elifritz

      Deep Climate has already made you look like the fool that you are Ms. Curry.

      “Deep Climate”?

      Huh?

      Get serious, Thomas.

      Max

    • TLF, a rude and pompous …, well even a serf is too polite to
      say what.Tsk!

      Professor Curry is a denizen of the open society which is what
      genuine science is about. Conjecture, refutation and testing,
      including ‘show yer workings. ‘ Do you support those who do not,
      or did not, TLF?

      Beth the serf.

    • barn E. rubble

      RE:Thomas Lee Elifritz | February 23, 2014 at 4:07 pm
      “Deep Climate has already made you look like the fool . . .”

      Well, if Deep Climate is all you read and your only source for information you’re not only a fool but a tool. And I mean that in a nice way.

    • When all you have is a buzzsaw, every nail is a problem.
      =====================

    • It’s the space cadet, Thomas Lee EliPutz from the People’s Republic of Madison. How ya doing Fritzy, you schmuck.

    • Ms. Curry.

      She is a full professor.
      Do you have a problem with women in science?

      • David Springer

        Elifritz has a problem with everything. School, work, life, his momma, you name it and it’s a problem for him. Dr. Curry is no exception.

    • Talk about sp@ce c@det… Geez

      If one fool has been exposed it is you, TLE.

    • Aren’t you DaveScot of the creationist chainsaw massacre fame?

      That’s quite a heavy bit of luggage you are carrying around with you.

  56. The only repercussions I’ve gotten from arguing against climate scientists knowing what they claim to know is that David Appell asked me to stop commenting on his site, which, being a nice guy, I did. Years and years ago now.

    I have the same arguments today that I did then. 1. You can’t solve the Navier Stokes equation so there’s no model; 2. You can’t distinguish a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle.

    • I completely agree with your points 1 and 2. I would also add that some climate cycles can be very long indeed and that the data series we use are far too short to make conclusions about its future trajectory.

  57. Departing Physicist

    Of course, as Roy Spencer has said before, an unusually cold winter doesn’t disprove global warming.

    Global warming (being 100% natural) will reappear between 2030 and 2060 but eventually there will be another 500 years of natural global cooling.

    What we can prove is that it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

    If you still think water vapour and radiating gases warm the surface, then what is the sensitivity to a 1% increase in water vapour, Michael Mann?

    Now go and find evidence that rain forests are 20 degrees hotter than dry deserts.

  58. “my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator”
    That is an appalling indictment of the academic system you operate under. I have little reason to suppose it is much different here in the UK, but it says a lot more about your employers than it does about you, Dr Curry.
    ‘Nil carborundum illegitimi’ as we failed Latin students sometimes say…

    • ” I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator.”

      Missed that, but, …….huh???????

      Givn that Judith has been in her curent position since 2002 – head of school at GIT – when did this happen??

      There’s no sign of it in her publication record – one primary author cite in the last decade, but no sudden decline not linked to her new role in 2002, and given that she was still toeing the consensus line in 2005, it wasn’t that she was shunted to head of school on the basis of her being some kind of maverick.

      Sounds like someone is drama-queening.

    • Michael, there was a reference to this by Judith et al earlier this year, when her post was advertised.

    • David Springer

      Michael’s real name is Hugh Jass. He suffered a lot in school because of it hence the attitude today. He graduates this summer (maybe, if he can bring up his failing grades) so the torment will be over hopefully.

    • Devastated, but getting over it.

      • David Springer

        No Michael, you’re not. Really. People on the outside can see you need anger management counseling. Venting on Curry’s blog isn’t helping since there’s been no change in months of you playing the angry asshat.

    • “People …can see you need anger management counseling. Venting on Curry’s blog … playing the angry asshat.” – David Springer?

      Springer wrote this??

      An imposter, or another denizen with zero self-arwareness.

      • David Springer

        It takes one to know one. You’re an angry asshat who needs counseling. I should know. The difference between you and I is that I know what I am. :-)

  59. Ken White at Popehat …

    Mark Steyn Has a Fool for a Client

    My view of the case is unchanged. I think the statements Mann attacks are best viewed as opinions expressed through vivid rhetoric and hyperbole, rather than statements of literal fact susceptible to defamation analysis. That view is strengthened by the steady progress of the law since 2012 in cases like Cox v. Obsidian Finance, which I discussed last month.1 The tone and rhetorical flair of the statements, the places they were published, and their entire tenor strongly suggest they were argumentative opinions rather than falsifiable statements of fact. Therefore, they ought to be absolutely protected by the First Amendment. In this I agree with Jonathan Adler and Dan Farber.
    [ ... ]
    I support the defendants, including Steyn, in their defense of Mann’s censorious lawsuit. I would donate to a Steyn defense fund. I would, if asked, try to round up pro bono support for Steyn — though he is a much, much bigger fish in this bloggy ocean that I am and ought not need my help. I’ve supported Steyn’s efforts against censors for years. But I can’t support what appears to be either a grand mal seizure of self-indulgence or an ill-considered piece of performance art. Steyn’s approach to this makes it significantly less likely that this case will produce a result favorable to free speech. That hurts not just him, but his codefendants and everyone who might face a censorious and politically motivated lawsuit. If Steyn’s antics help Mann win, censors everywhere will be emboldened. I hope someone with Mark Steyn’s ear convinces him to stop treating this as a show trial.

    http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/23/mark-steyn-has-a-fool-for-a-client/

    See and read the whole article for links to earlier comments by Ken White on Mann vs. Steyn.

    Bart R … Ken White is “a single qualified legal professional” although he is married with children.

    • Certainly the stuff Steyn has written in his counter-suit is bordering on bizarre.

      Maybe he was drunk when he wrote it?

    • Steyn’s counter-claims are intended for public consumption. The constitutional tort claim is not likely to survive. But the claim for attorneys’ fees and costs under the D.D. Anti-Slapp statute is well founded.

    • “D.D. Anti-Slapp”

      Gotta be kidding.

      Anti-anti-SLAPP maybe.

    • Speed | February 23, 2014 at 5:28 pm |

      The same Ken White who has made no less than four similar pronouncements at each earlier stage in the case, and whose every guess at the outcome of each stage was steadfastly dead wrong? If you were betting on ponies, you’d call that a longshot.

      Ken White’s post wasn’t available when I observed the paucity of qualified opinion invited by our host, and the lack of comment here from anyone qualified to discuss the law as an expert. And that really hasn’t changed. Ken White gives the wrong styling of Obsidian Finance Group LLC v. Cox, which is merely a nitpick, and also cherry picks only the parts of the multiple decisions friendly to his argument, while omitting the far larger portions easily showing his main case to be weak or unsupportable. Sure, you can make hyperbolic statements online and that’s fair game; however, when you cross over the line from hyperbole to any claim that can be tested and found untrue and malicious or negligent, barring unusual defenses clearly not available in the cases in question, Obsidian v. Cox is no help.

      And even then, Ken White is quite specific in his criticism of Steyn’s Curry-like conduct. The things people vulnerable to litigation do to put themselves in a worse position are startling. There are ways to do what apparently Steyn and Curry intend to effect; they ought get advice from someone who isn’t a fool about how to achieve those ends without increasing their exposure and the costly waste of court time. I’m a _min_archist: I’d rather see less government, including courts, used for frivolous and vexatious matters that bring none any good. So while I support free, open and transparent communication, I’m appalled by the conduct of people claiming the same goal in such an inept manner.

      Dr. Curry has repeatedly invited experts in astrology, economics, metrics, econometrics, electronics, history and histrionics to comment on their fields here. Yet no lawyer’s crossed into this commentary here. It’s a notable gap. Given the poor, and clearly slanted, coverage elsewhere, one would think a champion of unbiased discourse ought seek diversity of expert views.

    • Bart R said “Yet no lawyer’s crossed into this commentary here.”

      That is not correct.

      I believe there are several lawyers commenting here.

      I am a lawyer – a patent attorney.

      Defamation is not my area of law – but still I am a lawyer.

      I practice in Federal Court and this case is in Federal Court.

      I have not personally read every word of all of the pleadings – but based on what I have read in this thread (and others), I think most people’s concern over Steyn’s behavior are overblown (ditto for Mann’s behavior). The case will boil down to whether each side is able to carry their burden of proof as to their various claims. Personally, based on what I have read, I don’t think Mann is going to prevail – against any of the defendants.

    • RickA | February 24, 2014 at 8:59 am |

      Yes, I did say “Yet no lawyer’s crossed into this commentary here.”

      I also said, “I observed the paucity of qualified opinion invited by our host, and the lack of comment here from anyone qualified to discuss the law as an expert. And that really hasn’t changed.”

      And it still hasn’t changed; unless you have a compelling argument as to why a patent writer without experience in the field of defamation who hasn’t read the pleadings has any more valid expertise applicable to this case than, say, G&T’s mechanical engineering credentials lend them in climatology.

      Now, if Mann had patented the ‘Hockey Stick’, you’d be a go-to guy, well worth hearing out. Especially if you’d bothered to read the pleadings.

      Though, to be fair, I kinda came to the same premise as yours, with one addition: The case will boil down to whether each side is able to carry their burden of proof as to their various relevant claims. Most of the claims of the defense are so peripheral as to be a waste of time. The main claim of the defense has a long pedigree, as a losing argument. The main claim of the complaint has extensive precedence. If this claim is not supportable in a suit of defamation, then one could in a real sense assert there is no such thing as defamation.

    • Bart R:

      I never said my opinion was worth listening to.

      I don’t think my opinion is any better than yours.

      I simply was pointing out that there are lawyers posting in this thread.

      So what you are really complaining about is that there are no defamation lawyers posting here.

      Kind of like saying that it doesn’t matter what just any scientist says about climate – only what climate scientists have to say should be worth listening to. An appeal to authority – but narrowed down from all lawyers to just defamation lawyers.

      Still – I don’t think you are a defamation lawyer – are you?

      Why are you bothering to chime in?

    • David L. Hagen

      Referring to Popehat etc. Mark Steyn notes:

      I’m reeling under a barrage of lawyers offering advice and/or comment on other lawyers’ advice. Maybe we’ll save that for a separate topic, butMichael, one of many attorneys kindly volunteering his services pro bono, also has a non-legal suggestion:
      Dear Mr Steyn
      Might I suggest that your SteynOnline gift certificates make excellent baby presents. . . .

    • This is in response to Bart R’s comment above …

      Paragraph 1 – Asserts that Ken White has a history of being wrong about Mann vs. Steyn.
      Paragraph 2 – Asserts that Ken White is wrong about another case, Obsidian Finance Group LLC vs. Cox.
      Paragraph 3 – Agrees that the above assailed Ken White is right that Steyn has a fool for a client. Implies that Dr. Curry, who is not known to be involved in any lawsuits, is in some unspecified way like Steyn.
      Paragraph 4 – Hyperbole.

      If there’s a cogent argument in that pile of verbosity, I can’t find it.

    • Speed | February 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm |

      READ HARDER.

      RickA | February 24, 2014 at 11:27 am |

      I’m not a lawyer at all, is why I’m bothering to chime in: a lawyer would understand the ethical concern of offering opinion without competency, and generally avoid comment unless they’d closely followed the matter, if the lawyer put their ethics above their personal agenda.

      See how that disqualifies a lawyer who hasn’t read the pleadings and doesn’t have the necessary background in defamation, but doesn’t disqualify a layman?

    • Bart R:

      You are a funny guy.

      So according to you – no lawyer is allowed to have a personal opinion about a legal matter and make a comment about it unless they spend as much time “working” on it as one of the paid lawyers?

      No “uninformed” comments allowed according to your understanding of lawyer ethics.

      I suppose you feel the same way about scientists discussing scientific matters outside their narrow specialty – like Bill Nye the science guy discussing climate change or some random physics person discussing climate science.

      Clearly you don’t know what you are talking about.

      It is as if you are offering an expert legal opinion about legal ethics without being adequately informed about legal ethics.

      Very funny.

      There is nothing unethical about what I am doing here.

    • RickA | February 24, 2014 at 2:33 pm |

      Of course you’re doing nothing unethical.

      After all, Bill Nye has that Scientist’s Scientific Bar Association he belongs to, and deals in matters of public trust before the Science Bench, and you’re just doing what Bill Nye would do.

      The two cases are entirely alike.

      I don’t care that lawyers have uninformed opinions, or that they express them. By all means, cherry pick that one throw-away line from the end of one of my many comments to that effect to obscure my meaning, as that’s not unethical, either.

      To clarify, oh beacon of ethics, I’m merely startled that no informed lawyers with competency in the field have been invited to, or voluntarily, chime in here. Because where there are matters of science, astrology, numerology, quackery, Australian poetry, and even climate, etc., this blog is well-regarded for its power to draw competent expertise.

    • Bart R wrote, “READ HARDER.”

      Bart R resigns.

      The option to Resign from a game should be seen as the LAST resort, when you’ve made a complete horlix of things and are totally certain you can no longer avoid Losing.

      http://www.chess-game-strategies.com/resign.html

    • Speed | February 24, 2014 at 4:07 pm |

      Yeah, like you’re qualified to teach chess lessons.

      If this is a game to you, then you’ve lost your piece en passant.

      “READ HARDER” means if you can’t find the cogent argument, the blame is on your reading.

      There’s little a writer ought do about an inept reader.. except uphold them as a cautionary example to others not to fail the education of their children in literacy and personal responsibility.

      If you can’t read, don’t blame me.

    • Bart R said “I’m merely startled that no informed lawyers with competency in the field have been invited to, or voluntarily, chime in here. ”

      Well if you had said that in the first place I wouldn’t have corrected you.

      But what you said was wrong and I merely pointed it out. If you make a mistake and someone points it out, you should just admit it and move on – rather than attack the person for pointing out your error. It makes you look rude and defensive.

    • RickA | February 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm |

      Huh. I immediately admitted the statement, with full explanation.

      Here: Bart R | February 24, 2014 at 11:02 am |

      Are you going to keep beating that dead horse, or could you cite an example of any of the times you’ve been mistaken here, admittted it, and and shown yourself not to be rudely defensive by such conduct?

    • RickA | February 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm |

      Oh, and in case it’s escaped your notice, I know I’m rude; I don’t care. Overconcern for adherence to group norms, when this is the group, is hardly a virtue.

      And I do comment in defence of principle, accuracy and nearer approach of truth. I know, as a lawyer, this may be an alien attitude for you, but then, I’m no lawyer.

      Just like you’re no Bill Nye.

    • Bart R wrote,

      “There’s little a writer ought do about an inept reader.. except uphold them as a cautionary example to others not to fail the education of their children in literacy and personal responsibility.

      If you can’t read, don’t blame me.”

      In order to make your writing as effective as possible, you’re better off eliminating these enemies of clear and direct communication:
      •Metadiscourse: don’t describe what you’re going to say; just say it.
      •Redundancy: don’t use two or more words to describe something when one word will do.
      •Pretentious words: use simple, clear words instead of expensive, little-known ones.

      http://www.copyblogger.com/clear-writing/

      And …
      Examples of Clear Writing

    • Bart R:

      Here is an example where it was pointed out I made an error and I admitted it and wasn’t rude:

      See my comment above at February 23, 2014 at 5:50 pm.

      You will note that I did not accuse either poster of having an “agenda” or putting my agenda above my ethics. I apologized and politely made my point.

      Try it – you might get better results.

    • Bart R:

      Again with the sly insults.

      I never said I was Bill Nye. I merely used him as an example of a person without any particular expertise in climate science offering an opinion on climate science. Much like a patent lawyer offering an opinion on a defamation case.

      And again – I remind you that I have no problem with Bill Nye offering his opinion on global warming. He is just as entitled as I (or yourself) to offer an opinion on global warming.

      It is probably best you are not a lawyer. Because with your insulting argument style you might find a judge throwing you into jail for contempt of court.

    • RickA | February 24, 2014 at 7:22 pm |

      You think my writing sly? How flattering.

      Speed | February 24, 2014 at 6:54 pm | doesn’t seem to think so.

      A lot of people would, and do, antagonize judges, for various reasons. In that regard, I’d rather be one of Latimer Adler’s purported vast unwashed to do it on honest untutored statement of simple truth, than, say, a professional who ought know better, or the sort of person who seemingly purposely misreads to score a point.

      It takes almost nothing for a member of the bar to educate themselves on a field in law sufficient to make a worthwhile contribution to a discussion, to help inform the public of the state of the law and the meaning of events and actions, to be useful; less still, to read the actual pleadings and thus not speak out of prejudice and actual ignorance. Thanks for lowering the bar.

    • Robert I Ellison

      Glib, long winded prevarication seems a better description. There really seems only one point to bart’s diatribes – and that is to harangue and disparage.

      It takes little effort to engage in actual discourse – and perhaps somewhat more to become actually informed and thus have something substantive to discourse about – but bart has given up on good faith and honest communication long since.

    • Robert I Ellison | February 24, 2014 at 11:54 pm |

      Harangue and disparage would be two points.

      And I haven’t given up. I still hold out hope for you!

    • Robert I Ellison

      Harangue and disparage are two sides of the same face.

    • Bart R …

      Read and learn.
      Verbosity

    • Speed | February 24, 2014 at 6:54 pm |

      Here’s some context, for reflection.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

      Here’s some help:

      http://www.salisbury.edu/counseling/new/7_critical_reading_strategies.html

      Best wishes.

    • By the way, here’s what was said in the first place:

      Bart R | February 23, 2014 at 10:00 am |

      So.. in all of this, not a single invitation to anyone with actual legal expertise in such matters has been answered?

      Not a single qualified legal professional has stepped forward to address Dr. Curry’s questions and willingly be cited on Climate Etc. in their expert capacity?

      It’s understandable that some readers might lose the thread, what with all the interposing verbosity raising the reading level required to follow to grade ten or so.

      And thanks for thinking my writing glib. That’s even more flattering than sly.

    • Robert I Ellison

      ’1
      a : marked by ease and informality : nonchalant

      b : showing little forethought or preparation : offhand

      c : lacking depth and substance : superficial

      2
      archaic : smooth, slippery

      3
      : marked by ease and fluency in speaking or writing often to the point of being insincere or deceitful…’

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glib

      Precision counts.

  60. Funding for these lawsuits.

    From CSLDF’s website:

    “With Scott Mandia and Joshua Wolfe as co-managers, and with the fiscal sponsorship of the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund was founded. This group will serve as the non-profit incubator as we build our own organization.”

    So the question is, what is it? Its own separate legal entity with its own money and status with the IRS or is it under a type of umbrella provided by PEER? If one gives money to the CSLDF are they giving it to PEER, or are they giving it to PEER who then gives it to CSLDF?

    I am still trying to reconcile any charitable donation to PEER which is Okay with any charitable donation to Mann for his legal costs.

    PEER’s recent IRS form 990 on page 2 provides information about its Program Service Accomplishments:

    “Legal: PEER provides legal counsel, assistance, and representation to public employees who may face retaliation for speaking out for higher standards of scientific integrity, environmental ethics, and accountability in government.”

    I see some irony in the above with regards to Mann. A 501(c)(3) non-profit is the gold standard of charities. With this particular part of their mission, PEER associated about $220,000 of Court Awards as revenue with about $215,000 of expenses on the most recent form 990 available on Guidestar.

    Program Service Accomplishments say, This is what we do. In my opinion they also say, This is why we deserve to retain our golden non-profit status with the IRS.

    Another question is, how much if any do PEER and Mann overlap? A financial association where one may benefit with a 501(c)(3) is subject to oversight by the board of directors of that non-profit. Are any of my questions of interest to PEER’s donors which are really the wellspring of PEER?

  61. The only thing I can say about Mann is that I always regarded his [‘hokey stick’ analogy as a distortion of the facts, because he failed to take into account the on/off nature of climate science. Apparently he failed to recognize the importance of the singularity of 1940 and subsequent global temperature which could not be attributed to ordinary dynamics, but only to discontinuous on/off dynamics. If one takes the classical view this behavior can be attributed to saturation of the CO2′s mode or taking the quantum view, a ‘step’ down in the the stairs of temperature change.

  62. curryja | February 23, 2014 at 11:53 am |

    Ask MM if we wants me to make public the email exchange that he had with Peter Webster :)

    Well, I know one quickie subpoena duces tecum Steyn should send out.

  63. What is the difference between Michael Mann and a person suffering from delusional psychosis as defined in the DSM?

    Take as much time as like to formulate an answer.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    • That Mike M is a renowned scientist contributing to our understadning of the world, and Mike F aint and doesn’t.

      Glad to help.

    • barn E. rubble

      RE: Michael (Mickey the M.)
      “That Mike M is a renowned scientist contributing to our understadning of the world, and Mike F aint and doesn’t.”

      Speaking of the delusional . . . I don’t think Mickey has been, “contributing to our understadning of the world” much either. Or spelling for that matter. Perhaps quoting verbatim never helps these guys . . . could also explain why Mike M. doesn’t quote verbatim?

  64. Judith, very interesting post … Many interesting comments. Too bad the Joshua and WHUT attempted to hijack it again.

  65. “Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails” – JC

    Dang, almost forgot this.

    Mann made Steyn do it.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Michael: Mann made Steyn do it.

      Pretty much. Once Mann filed the suit, Steyn had to act.

    • Was thinking of his original stupid article.

      The counter-suit is just nutty.

    • Nutty Michael?
      That’ll be for the court to decide. They may take a dim view of the fact that Mann has doctored quotes from Muir Russel’s Inquiry findings when it’s clear he knew that their ‘exoneration’ applied to the CRU scientists, not him:

      July 7th 2010 – Realclimate:
      “The main issue is that they [The Muir Russell Inquiry panel] conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously.” Mike [Mann] & Gavin [Schmidt]

      Mann’s pleading reads:
      “…prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.[38 – Muir Russell Report]

      Oh dear, the specificity of which scientists Muir Russell was referring to has ‘gone missing’ in Mann’s court pleading. (Along with the heat).

      Playing fast and loose with quotes on blogs such as SkS is one thing. Deceiving the court with doctored quotes is another. I see trouble ahead.

    • “Nutty Michael?” – tallbloke

      Yes, nutty.

      Have you read it? – he must have been drunk when he wrote parts of it.

    • “Have you read it” – Michael

      I have. It’s much more entertaining than the usual lawyerspeak. Everyone in America loves to wax large about the right to free speech don’t they? And rightly so, it’s an important element of the constitution.

      Shutting down a journal because some scientists say something that disagrees with IPCC dogma, or suing someone because you’re too thin skinned to shrug off an attack on someone’s scientific output using ugly rhetoric is just anti-scientific and anti-liberty control freakery.

      Anyway, what’s your comment on Mann’s doctoring of quotes from the Muir Russel Inquiry? Or are you going to avert your eyes from this self serving misrepresentation?

    • Just bring out the facts, Mac,
      Investigate on the rack,
      ‘Exonerate’ that hack,
      And don’t you look back.
      ===============

    • “or suing someone because you’re too thin skinned to shrug off an attack” – tallbloke

      ……or threatening to sue too?

      “Anyway, what’s your comment on Mann’s doctoring of quotes from the Muir Russel Inquiry? Or are you going to avert your eyes from this self serving misrepresentation?” – t/b

      We.. this is just another example of the sad and stupid lenths, so-called ‘skeptics’ stoop to in their on-going jihad against certain scientists.

      Firstly, stooping to your level of quibbling, do you think Mann actually wrote the response, or was it drafted by his legal reps?

      And on the issue itself, read the whole f***ing paragraph – it’s makes it crystal clear that “the scientists” refers to the CRU sceintists, not Mann.

      Again, certain people make clear that they have no ethical standards and willfuly mis-represent, insinuate and otherwise behave as complete arses, as their obsessions require.

    • @michael

      Spit it our man…no need for reticence..no need to be shy. Say what you mean…and let us all see that calm, incisive, shrewd laser-like brain at work.

    • Lati,

      You’re right, I will stop beating around the bush.

    • @Michael | February 25, 2014 at 6:27 am |

      And on the issue itself, read the whole f***ing paragraph – it’s makes it crystal clear that “the scientists” refers to the CRU sceintists, not Mann.

      Very well. Here is the entire paragraph, from pages 19/20 of the PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS NATIONAL REVIEW AND MARK STEYN’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO D.C. ANTI-SLAPP ACT AND MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO D.C. SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 12(B)(6) (Note that I’ve reformatted paragraphs for easier reading. Please refer to the linked originals for verification. Because the commenting software strips out superscript tags, I’ve also enclosed references superscripted in the original in square brackets, i.e.[], Page number references are to internal page numbers, those found in PDF readers may be different.)

      In April 2010, the University of East Anglia convened an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge,[36] and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit”.[37] Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”[38]

      Footnotes 36 and 37 refer to a different report, the quote in question is supported by footnote 38 (on page 20):

      [38] Sir Muir Russell, et al., “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review,” (July 2010), available at: http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

      Looking at the linked document, the referenced paragraph is as follows (bolding original):

      13. Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

      Note the different spelling of “rigour”. A search of the document using a stand-alone PDF reader finds only two (2) occurances of the word “rigor” (not including “rigorous”): on pages 33 and 57. Thus, there is no occurance of the actual quote from the Mann filing in the document referenced in its footnote.

      Thus, the filing contains an inaccurate quote. The prior part of the paragraph refers to a different report, and is even on a different page: the page break occurs between “University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email” and “Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell”, causing the mis-quote to be at the top of a page, and making it easy for the context to be ignored.

      Thus, when you say:

      Again, certain people make clear that they have no ethical standards and willfuly mis-represent, insinuate and otherwise behave as complete arses, as their obsessions require.

      … This statement is best taken to be about yourself.

    • They made it ‘crystal clear’ that it was about the CRU scientists by heading the section “Dr Mann Is Exonerated” :)

    • Whooooosh

      Teddy achieved orbit.

      Michael has kicked so many holes in his pram his case isn’t going to hold water

    • “Firstly, stooping to your level of quibbling, do you think Mann actually wrote the response, or was it drafted by his legal reps?”
      And that Nobel Laureate thing, too. How embarrassing. Mann really has to get his peeps in order. But just to clarify so I know what standards to apply. When plagiarism in the Wegman Report was discovered and Wegman blamed it on a subordinate, you are saying that he shouldn’t have been held responsible for it?

    • “They made it ‘crystal clear’ that it was about the CRU scientists by heading the section “Dr Mann Is Exonerated” :)” – Paul.

      Read the damn thing.

      It is crystal clear – the paragraph is absolutely clear that it refers only to the CRU scientists. The whole CRU thing is included for 2 reasons –
      1. it establises the context that there were widespread claims about data manipulation etc stemming from the stolen emails and,
      2. the defendants suggested that the UEA investigation concluded that Mann’s HS study was misleading.
      So, on these points,
      1 – it showed that there no adverse findings against any scientist at UEA and ,
      2. the UEA didn’t state that, hence the reference, – not because it explicitly exonerated Mann (it didn’ refer to him in it’s findings), but because it clarifies a false allegation made by the defendanst about the UEA reports regarding Mann’s work. ie it does exonerate Mann from the flase charge about a finding in the UEA report.

      Get a f***ing clue, you dimwits.

      No one with half a brain can continue to repeat this false claim about the “doctored quote” – there isn’t one.

      There is a minor misattribution (the actual qoute exists) – you’d think that all the auditors and ‘skeptics’ could have figured this out for themsleves.

      Insead we have a typical ‘skeptics’ error cascade, with all the stupid sheep baaing in unison.

      Time to stop and take a good look at yoursleves and your appallingly stupid behaviour.

    • @michael

      Wow. You seem very well informed about not only what the document says, but also on the ‘why’. Were you a fly on the wall during MM’s conferences with his legal team?

      BTW – if it is as ‘crystal clear; as you claim, how come it needs a supplementary explanation from you? A truly crystal clear piece would surely stand alone.

      And I’m not sure that a ‘crystal clear’ document would contain any misattribution at all, whether you judged it to be minor or otherwise.

      Still, I guess its too late to change the submitted work now……

    • “if it is as ‘crystal clear; as you claim, how come it needs a supplementary explanation from you? A truly crystal clear piece would surely stand alone.” – Lati

      Because some people are determinedly stupid, and others are neck deep in confirmation bias so that when they hear something they like the sound of they don’t check the facts for themselves but just accept it as true.

      Where are the sceptics?

    • @michael

      Where is the link to the false claim supposedly made by the defendant ‘about the UEA reports regarding Mann’s work. ie it does exonerate Mann from the flase charge about a finding in the UEA report’

      Because without that link, ‘crystal clear’ it ain’t.

      Surely you’d write such a para

      ‘Defendant makes the false claim that report y said something about our client’.This is demonstrably false. The report in question restricted itself to discussions about other folks and made no reference to our client.

      [Insert relevant CRU quote here]

      QED’

      or some such. Why go about it in such a clumsy and long-winded way? Are the lawyers paid by the word?

      And the heading ‘Mann is exonerated’ isn’t quite true either, if the excerpt bears the meaning you claim. Irrelevance cuts both ways.

      Definition: Exonerate ‘absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing.’

      If the body in question did not even look at Mann’s work, it has not expressed any opinion on the matter. That it exonerated the CRU guys may be true..but that ‘exoneration’ cannot be extended to Mann. He has not been exonerated of anything by this evidence

      My suggestion – since you appear to have the ear of the plaintiff/defendant – is that you persuade him to change his advisers to some who can indeed write English with no opportunities for ‘ambiguity’, that they get a good sharp editor and that they really think through what they are trying to convey. At the moment they are as ‘crystal clear’ as Thames floodwater

    • “Where is the link to the false claim supposedly made by the defendant ‘about the UEA reports regarding Mann’s work…” – Lati

      Here’s where they try to make some lame insinuations;

      “the Independent Climate Change Email Review (“ICCER”),…did, however,
      conclude that some renditions of the “hockey stick” diagram were “misleading…”

      Which has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Mann. Not a thing.

      Which is why Mann’s legal team have referred to the UEA report to make it crystal clear there is no finding, or even any implication, of wrong doing on Mann’s part.

      This garbage, combined with the hysterics over the not “doctored quote” makes you wonder what is driving people to make these irrational and venomous attacks on Mann.

      It’s almost as if there is something pathological at work, not a critique of science, not even the individual – is there something about his identity that fuels such viscious stupidity??

    • @michael

      Thanks, but where exactly is the quote you cite from? Which document? Where in the document? What is the context?

    • Hmmmmm – did reply with the link, but it’s nowhere to be seen.
      Either I screwed up, or calling you a fool got it censored.

      Anyway, let me spoon feed you again,

      http://dcslapplaw.com/files/2013/01/National_review_SLAPP_MOL.pdf

      P.16

    • @michael

      Thanks.

      BTW Is it too late for you to ask for a refund from your charm school? You were obviously lured there under false pretences.

    • “charm school” – lati.

      Oh my, now he asks for charm! A bit late in the day isn’t it, after Judith published lengthy quotes about the non-existent “doctored quote” by Michael Mann;

      “…the extraordinary revelation that Michael Mann’s latest submission to the courts regarding his libel suit includes a doctored quote. The offending words purport to be an excerpt …demonstrating a startling disregard for the court, … altered to make it look as if Mann had been exonerated by Russell…. so badly as to make the alteration fairly obvious.” – The Grand Quibbler

      And a free kick for Steyn,

      “Mann and his lawyers doctored a quote a…That’s bad enough. …the best his lawyers can come up with is a fake quote…Dr Mann has played fast and loose with details all his professional life… he is merely careless or fraudulent, but rigour, or rigor, or any other spelling thereof, is something he knows not.”

      Plus links to more of the same. And of course the denizens know the sound of the dinner bell….more vitriol and stupid.

      All untrue of course, because there is no quote doctored by Michael Mann,or his legal team.

      Of course any real sceptc, or anyone with a functional BS meter, or a shred of critical thinking, could have figured this out for themselves instead of joining in on the sheep-like pile-on.

      I suggested to Judith that an update would be appropriate. Crickets.

      So, lecture me more on “charm school”.

      Please.

    • @michael

      Looks like I was wrong and you never attended Charm School. The basic idea that you can catch more flies with honey than with vitriol doesn’t seem to have registered.

      But if you are one of those advising Mr Mann, I’d suggest that – given his demonstrably short and badly calibrated fuse when confronted with any criticism whatsoever – you and he will not make a good combination to guide him through the public minefield he has chosen to explore.

      Right now he needs a cool head and calm judgement as the counterpoint to his own excitability. Another loose cannon such as yourself will not be good for him or his cause.

      Perhaps you should bow out gracefully and let him take counsel elsewhere?

    • > They made it ‘crystal clear’ that it was about the CRU scientists by heading the section “Dr Mann Is Exonerated” :)

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

      One would expect a mathematician to get that one.

    • > Perhaps you should bow out gracefully and let him take counsel elsewhere?

      Perhaps Latimer should reread the Auditor’s new take on this and move on to the new accusation? Hint: it includes the word “eight”.

      It doesn’t work either, but at least that would show that Latimer reads the blog, as bender chides everyone to do.

    • @nevaudit

      Didn’t follow much of that last comment, Nev. Not sure what you’re suggesting I do. And having spent a wee while trying to decode Michael’s last few contributions, I’m not minded to solve yet more riddles.

      But I reiterate my observation that the contributor here, ‘Michael’, and Mr Mann are far too similar in character and volatility for the one to make a wise counsellor to the other.

    • Steyn called Mike a fraud.
      Mike called Steyn’s bluff.
      All Mike needs to show is
      That no enquiry found fraud
      To date in Mike’s social network,
      Including Mike himself.

      The crux of the matter is quite simple:
      Anyone who wishes to use the F word has to put up or shut up.
      Bear in mind that the Auditor does not publicly uses it.

      Everything else is an amusing sideshow.

      ***

      Also note that the Auditor consulted with Steyn’s team and
      Is willing to consult again for a fee:

      In October 2013, at the request of Steptoe, the then lawyers for National Review and Steyn, I visited them in Washington to provide background on the dispute. Steptoe paid my travel expenses, but I was not offered (nor did I request) remuneration for my time. During the trip, I also provided a briefing with CEI’s counsel. Following my trip, Steptoe proposed that I act as a consultant to National Review in the litigation, but I didn’t follow up or enter into any agreement. I am reluctant to enter into a consulting agreement at present, since I want to preserve my ability to comment independently. On the other hand, I can envisage circumstances in which I might enter into a consulting agreement with one of the parties and perhaps even be remunerated for my time: everyone else seems to get paid. If that happens, I’ll disclose it.

      http://www.climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/

    • “The basic idea that you can catch more flies with honey than with vitriol doesn’t seem to have registered.” – Lati

      Fine advice Lati – the proof of it being offered in good faith, rather than as a rhetorical ploy, will be in the evidence of you offering it to others, you know, Judith, the Auditor,and especially your fellow denizens.

      Links thanks, and apologies in advance, I’m sure.

    • “Perhaps Latimer should reread the Auditor’s new take on this and move on to the new accusation? Hint: it includes the word “eight”.” – willard

      ‘Spray and pray’ – continuously evolving claims, and hope some of them stick.

      I recall very early in the piece, when Judith was taking her students on a side-show tour of CA one of her students gave a fairly perceptive summary of The Auditiors MO (from memory – certainly wrong, but close enough) ;
      - various claims of numerical fault/wrong-doing
      - throw a bunch of rudimentary stats at it
      - try to make sense of it; find it’s all a bit complicated
      - make a brief/shallow attempt to understand the underlying physical processes; too hard, give up
      - decide it’s all really a bit complicated, and move on to a new target
      - repeat as above.

    • @michael

      If and when any of those you mention – or anybody else – should sink to the level of gratuitous personal unpleasantness that you so frequently do, then I’ll be happy to offer them the same advice about honey and vitriol as I do you.

      But if you somehow believe that emotional incontinence is a way of demonstrating your sincerity, then I fear you are much mistaken. Tho’ it may win approval within your hero’s circle of acolytes, mature adults view it correctly as the immature ranting of an uncontrolled mind..

      For one who seeks to defend a self-described ‘leading scientist’, the contrast between our expectations of how such a man should behave and the thuggish image of his gang you present is quite bizarre. I’d strongly advise that Mr Mann does not call you as a character witness in court. You will not make a favourable impression.

  66. A warmer climate is a good thing. Humans do poorly in Ice Ages. More CO2 please.

    • Now, if it would only work.
      ===========

    • Russ in NC | February 23, 2014 at 6:58 pm |

      And, with the next Ice Age due in 20,000 years, wouldn’t that be a great time to pump up the CO2 to 280 ppmv, the maximum range humans have ‘done well in’ for any substantial length of time?

      Though, frankly, your absurd contention is not borne out by careful study: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2121.html

    • Bart R

      Humans are doing “jes’ fine” at around 400 ppmv CO2 – arguably much better than they were at 280 or 295 ppmv (see Richard Tol study).

      And they’ll continue to be doing “jes’ fine” at 650 ppmv, when IPCC tells us it will be around 2C warmer than today (around year 2100).

      And anyone who thinks he can predict beyond year 2100 has obviously fallen on his head.

      Max

    • manacker | February 26, 2014 at 3:45 am |

      Try to keep up:

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-wont-cut-winter-deaths-as-hoped/

      Your specious claims do not stand up to inspection.

    • Bart R

      I posted some actual reports of deaths which fresulted in the UK from the extremely cold winters of the past few years.

      To this you post a study headlined:

      Global warming won’t cut winter deaths as hoped

      Citing this questionable study, you add:

      Your specious claims do not stand up to inspection.

      “Inspection”?

      I’d call that “speculation”, not “inspection”.

      But let’s try a little logic (assuming you can follow logic).

      - Extremely cold winters have caused many deaths.

      - Anthropogenic global warming is supposed to affect winter temperatures: as IPCC puts it in AR4, “warmer and fewer cold days and nights are virtually certain to occur based on projections for 21st century”.

      - Fewer cold days means fewer deaths from cold days.

      Pretty straightforward, Bart.

      Max

    • manacker | February 26, 2014 at 7:38 pm |

      Wow, you do love to ASS-U-ME.

      You ASS-U-ME the IPCC has it right at all. An odd position, considering that on so much else you ASS-U-ME the IPCC is wrong. Except you cherry pick only part of the passage from the IPCC on this issue. You know they go on to say far more about it, and that it conflicts with what you ASS-U-ME.

      You ASS-U-ME the difference, in civilized areas, of perhaps a full degree in temperature by century’s end, will translate at all to a proportional difference in mortality, perhaps mystically paid forward to today, when there is nothing like that indicated in the actual data.

      You ASSUME equipartition or better, as if these fewer cold days will be equally shared among the lethal and nonlethal ones, or in the lethal vs. nonlethal regions. On what basis, other than convenience to your personal agenda?

      You ASS-U-ME all of this notwithstanding that external forcing in complex systems tend to make all extremes more likely in some realms or spans where before they were infrequent or nonexistent.

      You’re a regular ASS-U-ME machine.

    • Bart R

      As usual you have it all a–backward.

      I do not ASS-U-ME anything.

      I simply cited reports of actual cold-related deaths recorded during the cold winters in the UK.

      It is you who ASS-U-ME that the study you cited is correct, which predicts that fewer cold days will not result in fewer deaths attributable to cold days.

      Duh!

      Ya gotta rely on faith, Bart, when logic and actual records do not support your viewpoint.

      Max

    • manacker | February 28, 2014 at 1:30 am |

      Your argument uses correlation as its only evidence of causation, and calls that logic?

      Your sources of “actual records” are the freaking Daily Mail and the Mirror, and your claims stack them up against http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2121.html and call that logic?

      For a look at how a logical argument appears, try to follow this section of the abstract:

      We found that the association of year-to-year variation in EWDs with the number of cold days in winter ( <5 °C), evident until the mid 1970s, has disappeared, leaving only the incidence of influenza-like illnesses to explain any of the year-to-year variation in EWDs in the past decade. Although EWDs evidently do exist, winter cold severity no longer predicts the numbers affected. We conclude that no evidence exists that EWDs in England and Wales will fall if winters warm with climate change.

      Do you see how Staddon et al relies on actual records and then uses actual logic, as opposes to Daily Mail logic, to get a more accurate or nearly true explanation?

  67. As to Dr. Curry’s decision not to sue Mann, I whole heartedly agree it is the wisest course (not that she asked).

    Suing Mann would be accepting his conduct as an example. Using litigation to blackmail someone in to behaving the way you want.

    Steyn’s counter-claim, on the other hand, is also appropriate. Although I think his second counter-claim, the “constitutional tort.” will not survive long.

    The First Amendment is a restriction on governments, not on individuals. Conduct which seeks to restrict free speech is therefore not actionable against an individual. A suit against individual defendants who are government actors can be had under 42 U.S.C. §1981. But that is generally an action against an individual acting on behalf of government. Government funding is not generally sufficient to make an individual a state actor for that purpose.

    As to his first counter-claim, the D.C. Anti-SLAPP provision does provide for attorney’s fees and costs. But since Steyn lost his motion under that provision, it seems likely he would need to win an appeal of that order to be entitled to recover. As far as I can tell, National Review appealed the second order denying the motion to dismiss, but Steyn has not yet. He should.

    • hould be “42 U.S.C. §1981, and 1983″

    • Finally a topic fit for a GaryM.

      I bow out when the lawyers appear.

    • The First Amendment is a restriction on governments, not on individuals. Conduct which seeks to restrict free speech is therefore not actionable against an individual.

      I believe that this interpretation applies here in Canada, as well. However, Mann may well be a special case – or at the very least, in light of his pleadings and other assorted FabriCitations™, consider himself as such., notwithstanding his many “cub scout” mewlings of martyrdom!

      Much of Mann’s verbiage strikes me as approximating that of a little-dictator-wannabe; particularly in light of his “free speech for me but not for thee” frivolous libel suits – and other threats of legal action – against those who might have the temerity to question, contradict or mock his self-serving blatherings.

      IOW, in the State of Mann, so to speak, he is the government, is he not? ;-)

    • Baron Mannchausen.
      ===============

    • Matthew R Marler

      WebHubTelescope: I bow out when the lawyers appear.

      That’s funny. The thread was initiated as commentary on lawsuits, the first written by lawyers, and maybe the second also.

    • Webby, that’s a wise choice.

      Nerdy numbers-crunchers don’t stand a chance when the legal beagles enter the scene (as Mann is about to find out).

      Max

  68. Judith, very much respect your willingness to fight for the importance of open scientific inquiry even at your own expense.

    The world needs many more scientists like you, and many fewer like Mann.

  69. Free Speech is at stake? How about Property Rights? This BS called Global Warming, Climate Change, or the next Fad Term de jour is a means for theft by State.

    Never mind that we are dead in the middle of the current interglacial. Never mind that CONVECTION is ignored or severely understated in calculating the cooling that dominates the Troposphere.

    The fact that this ‘debate’ (where the Protagonist refuses to share methods) is still ongoing is quite sad. The inflationary and static universe debate was settled in a very antagonistic manner, but we found the TRUTH.

    Brilliant people have egos and feelings are going to be hurt, but what we have in AGW, Global Warming, Climate Change is not a test of egos, but a test of AUTHORITY and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Lots of money.

    Any GD fool who understands Thermodynamic Systems and Convection can defend Natural Global Warming/Cooling. It takes a Climate Change PRIEST to defend AGW.

  70. Steyn: “So they asked an outsider, Lord Oxburgh, to chair the investigation”

    Ron Oxburgh is not and was not an ‘outsider’. Comb the climategate emails, and there ye shall find him, well connected.

  71. “Academic freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment. Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. ”

    It seems the general idea of academic freedom, is effort to give as much freedom to academia as most free citizens enjoy, rather giving some special
    privilege. Or academia can face more oppression by political elements than an average citizen.
    So just because one a member card, does not give some kind noble status.

    Or all people “should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts”- no one should or can have “more freedom”, but the point is academia may more vulnerable to political assault.

    The problem is Mann is using the power of the state to oppress individuals, and should matter whether those individual have some sort of Academic member card and a it’s debasement Academic freedom.

    One could say Mann is defending himself against oppression which could come from political forces, but you can’t allow such justification as it would nullify Academic freedom.

    • Latter day Lysenkoism, anybody?

      Any calls for imprisonment, beheading, banning, sacking, staking or similar, of those who would like to see an experimental verification of the mad AGW hypothesis?

      At least Lysenko was a fine scientist, if later a little delusional,and obsessed. So were Newton and Lord Kelvin, but their benefits outweighed their frailties. Mann, not so much. Anybody who believes that torturing an average to fit a preconceived notion pretty much surrenders any claim to be taken seriously.

      Civilisation from time to time surrenders responsibility to fools, frauds and charlatans. It is a pity that the unbelievers are forced to pay for the delusions of others.

      Ah well.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

  72. WHT writes in a pitch perfect demonstration of the quintessential. warmist mind at work:: “McIntyre is null in the debate. All he does is correct small mistakes that scientists occasionally make. It doesn’t matter in the greater scheme of things.

    That’s why I refer to him as Null of McIntyre as far as the science is concerned. In terms of his rhetoric, he is a non-entity because no one cares about that aspect.”

    I especially love “all he does is correct small mistakes that scientists occasionally make.” There’s no point in dissecting the silliness. You won’t get it. But I wanted to put it up again in the hopes that more people will see it. You guys are without question, your own worst enemies.

    • Whistling past the orebody.
      ====================

    • barn E. rubble

      RE: “I especially love “all he does is correct small mistakes that scientists occasionally make.” There’s no point in dissecting the silliness.”

      Like knowingly using/presenting data upside down? Data that the original authors said was corrupted and shouldn’t be used at all? Or knowingly using data from tree species that recognized experts say should not be used at all? These among all the other issues re: Mann’s work, are considered ‘small mistakes’? Silly just doesn’t really describe it.

    • WHT was referring to the grand scheme of things.

      Those issues may pertain to specific studies, but do any of the things you mention matter in the grand scheme of things to our understanding of temperature variations in the last few millennial? I don’t think so. Let alone to the bigger picture of ongoing manmade global warming and the threat it poses.

    • PG, you have null understanding of the science of climate. You have no intuition about how any of the mechanisms work. You have no insight into how to reduce the complexity that seems to baffle you.

      In short, you seem very similar to McIntyre.

    • Wanna bet?
      ========

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      lolwot says:

      “Those issues may pertain to specific studies, but do any of the things you mention matter in the grand scheme of things to our understanding of temperature variations in the last few millennial? I don’t think so.”

      Two examples, the schtick was the IPCC talisman, seen everywhere, and since it was distributed to every household in Canada by the government, and since it took away variability over a thousand years period, then yes it did influence thought – toward rejecting any influence of natural variability. It still does.

      You thought wrongly, lolwot.

    • Here is your variability over time, little buddy

      http://contextearth.com/2014/02/21/soim-and-the-paul-trap/

      You see, the Pacific ocean goes through these inharmonic oscillations over time that no one can seem to predict, yet think they can go out of control and swamp the huge CO2 forcing that we have detected.

      That constitutes much of the noise in the hockey stick shaft.

    • WHUT, you write ” the huge CO2 forcing that we have detected.”

      I object to the use of the word “detected”. To me this implies some form of measurement. So far as I am aware, the radiative forcing of CO2, 3.7 Wm-2 for doubling, has been calculated, and so it can be claimed it has been detected.

      But there is no scientific way, which is not purely hypothetical, in which this change in radiative forcing can be translated into some form of change of global temperature, or OHC. So your statement is at best unclear, and at worst, just plain wrong.

    • You see, the Pacific ocean goes through these inharmonic oscillations

      are you talking about anharmonicity or are you inventing a new mechanism?

    • What’s the problem Maks? Haven’t you kept up with the physics known since 1929, and before that?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Whutty,

      Is yours the type of oscillation which describes the behaviour of an elastic beam?

    • It doesn’t apply to a rectilinear elastic beam, only to something distorted such as an elliptical shape or a beam with additional perturbations in space.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Then are you sure “inharmonic is the right descriptor?

    • Anharmonic and inharmonic both describe the situation where the overtones are not harmonic multiples of the fundamental frequency. This of course makes Fourier analysis more challenging because the peaks don’t line up in the expected position.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Whutty,
      You then disagree with Fletcher 2002?

    • “PG,….

      In short, you seem very similar to McIntyre.”

      You give me much too much credit Mr. Telescope. Your ridiculous argument that non scientists like me aren’t qualified to have an opinion on the state of climate science is as tired as it is self-serving. For one thing, it completely disregards the fact that plenty of qualified scientists are not in the alarmist camp.

      Ultimately, this is about policy. In a democracy, policy is decided by rabble like me. Too bad, webby, people just don’t seem to appreciate how brilliant you are. Must be so frustrating for you.

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘Here, ENSO’s non-Gaussian nature and asymmetry are diagnosed from in situ data and a variety of models (from intermediate complexity models to full-physics coupled general circulation models (CGCMs)) using robust statistical tools initially designed for financial mathematics studies. In particular α-stable laws are used as theoretical background material to measure (and quantify) the non-Gaussian character of ENSO time series and to estimate the skill of “naïve” statistical models in producing deviation from Gaussian laws and asymmetry. The former are based on non-stationary processes dominated by abrupt changes in mean state and empirical variance. It is shown that the α-stable character of ENSO may result from the presence of climate shifts in the time series. Also, cool (warm) periods are associated with ENSO statistics having a stronger (weaker) tendency towards Gaussianity and lower (greater) asymmetry. This supports the hypothesis of ENSO being rectified by changes in mean state through nonlinear processes.’ http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/16/453/2009/npg-16-453-2009.html

      ENSO is non-stationary and non-Gaussian. This makes all the difference. What we get from webby is bluster, a poorly fitted curve and incredibly simple error based on a lack of understanding of ENSO statistics and dynamics.

      A little bit of wider reading and an open mind might help but somehow I think it a lost cause. Their latest forlorn hope is that a 2014 El Nino will save the day for them.

    • The Aussie can’t even model the hydrodynamics on his doorstep. Watch how the ENSO pans out this year and the next .

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Whutty,

      Here is Fletcher 2002.

      http://www.animations2.physics.unsw.edu.au/music/people/publications/Fletcher2002.pdf

      Do you disagree with Fletcher?

    • The Fletcher paper is filed under music. A square drum head will have a fundamental frequency and harmonics. A rectangular will have two fundamentals in general. An elliptical will have a complex waveform. These are all elastic surfaces with boundary conditions.

      Now what happens with a really elastic beam is that the beam will bend enough to induce an elliptical shape. This will then generate an inharmonic waveform.

      The take home message for skeptics is that the complexity of the waveform does not necessarily have anything to do with chaos. And that the actual waveforms are bounded but on the complex side, which is the reason that they haven’t been completely figured out yet. But that will change over the next few years.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Whutty said:

      “The Fletcher paper is filed under music. A square drum head will have a fundamental frequency and harmonics. A rectangular will have two fundamentals in general. An elliptical will have a complex waveform. These are all elastic surfaces with boundary conditions.

      Now what happens with a really elastic beam is that the beam will bend enough to induce an elliptical shape. This will then generate an inharmonic waveform.

      The take home message for skeptics is that the complexity of the waveform does not necessarily have anything to do with chaos. And that the actual waveforms are bounded but on the complex side, which is the reason that they haven’t been completely figured out yet. But that will change over the next few years.”

      The paper discusses more than music.

      Do you disagree with Fletcher, and if so on which grounds?

    • Robert I Ellison

      The Minnesotan mouth has not a clue about hydrodynamics. As I said they are hoping for a big El Niño in 2014 to rescue things for them.

      Statistically small El Niño are overwhelmingly likely in a cool Pacific mode – such as we have seen since the turn of the millennium. Certainly there is no huge warm pool in the western Pacific.

      Indeed conditions across the Pacific are average as a whole.

      An excellent ENSO summary – with some very interesting monitoring of various parameters can be found at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology – http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

      ‘Most international climate models surveyed by the Bureau suggest the tropical Pacific Ocean will warm through the austral autumn and winter. Some, but not all, models indicate central Pacific Ocean temperatures may approach El Niño levels by early winter. Model outlooks that span autumn tend to have lower skill than outlooks made at other times of the year, hence long-range outlooks should be used cautiously at this point. Neither neutral nor El Niño states can be discounted for the second half of 2014.’

      The model round up can be found there as well.

      ‘Six of the seven international climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate that SSTs in the equatorial Pacific Ocean are likely to slowly warm, although remaining ENSO-neutral until at least the end of autumn. Some models suggest this warming may approach El Niño thresholds during winter.’

      The models suggest weak El Niño at best.

      On the other hand – there is upwelling in the eastern and central Pacific – which sets up feedbacks that result in La Nina propagating across the Pacific. The continuation of this pattern depends on what happens with the Antarctic Oscillation – with negative modes pushing cold, Southern Ocean water north in the Peruvian Current.

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html

      Interesting as all this is – focusing on single events misses the big picture. ENSO dynamics changed to a cooler mode in the 1998/2001 climate shift.

    • Matthew R Marler

      lolwot: Those issues may pertain to specific studies, but do any of the things you mention matter in the grand scheme of things to our understanding of temperature variations in the last few millennial?

      Yes.

    • I will ignore the Aussie as the other guy has some interest in the topic.

      As I said, if you take an elastic beam and you bend it, it will induce an elliptical deformation that will lead to non-harmonic overtones.

      A stretched square drum head is also elastic but the bending is not enough to create an elliptical curvature on its own. It’s only when the skin has an elliptical boundary can you induce this complexity in the waveform.

      The Pacific ocean is not square and can be approximated by an ellipse. This is what I used as a premise to generate a projection. The physics says the SOI waveform will be complex in shape and it certainly is.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Whuty, I’m not interested in your opinion of what skeptics think. I would endorse a scrub of this whole sub thread if Professor Curry gets to it, but I could see a possible forum benefit overall from getting you to answer the questions asked.

      Previously you said. “It doesn’t apply to a rectilinear elastic beam, only to something distorted such as an elliptical shape or a beam with additional perturbations in space.”

      But now you seem to say it does apply at times if it’s a really elastic beam. Is that right?
      And do you disagree with anything Fletcher said in the article?

    • Robert I Ellison

      Yes of course he ignores me. He has no answer for actual science or for the reality of ENSO.

      ‘The elastic beam is but one example of this type of oscillator, and indeed essentially all idiophones, by which is meant sound-producing instruments that do so by virtue of their own vibration, such as gongs and bells, are inharmonic. The only partial exception is the bells of Western carillons,
      which have been shaped and tuned so that their first few mode frequencies are in nearly integer relationship. The sounds of inharmonic oscillators are common in Asian music based on gongs, an example being the Indonesian Gamelan orchestra. The scales and harmonies used differ considerably
      from those of Western music based upon sustained-tone harmonic oscillators, but are in fact equally pleasant.’

      The effect in beams is related to stiffness and mass. Here it is explored with guitar strings.

      http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/Stiffness-Inharmonicity/Stiffness-B.html

      I suppose what he is talking about is waves – which are driven by winds and tides – setting up interference patterns. In a body the size and complexity of the Pacific these are immensely complex – incomputable in any deterministic way due to the size of the calculation.

      What is meant by inharmonic is that there are the harmonics of the fundamental mode are not integer values. In this case some undefined wave pattern that has neither origin or boundary conditions. In this case the inharmonic wave is the SOI itself. How do we translate waves into the SOI? Very poorly indeed. What webby does is fit an equation to a curve without any fundamental physics at all – merely barely understood wave papers. It is another bizarre webby dead end. It is an idea whose time has never and will never come.

      ENSO is non-stationary and non-Gaussian. ENSO is a complex and dynamic system involving air/sea coupling and abrupt changes in ocean circulation, clouds, wind and currents. The chaotic dynamics will not be captured by curve fitting.

    • If you try to have a meaningful discussion with Webby then you are doomed to failure. He has demonstrated that he completely misses major points on an issue and stays focused on the unimportant is he gets any positive feedback

    • Anharmonic and inharmonic both describe the situation where the overtones are not harmonic multiples of the fundamental frequency. This of course makes Fourier analysis more challenging because the peaks don’t line up in the expected position.

      Fourier analysis in a harmonic oscillator is a significant challenge,as macroscopic laws such as Fouriers (heat transfer)do not hold and is well known.

      In an Anharmonic oscillator heat transport is strange ( Eckmann and Zabey) even guessing is limited as diffusion is not a mechanism and Kirchhoff’s circuit law does not hold.

      Inharmonic systems introduce another mechanism synchronization eg

      When a string is bowed or tone in a wind instrument initiated by vibrating reed or lips, a phenomenon called mode-locking counteracts the natural inharmonicity of the string or air column and causes the overtones to lock precisely onto integer multiples of the fundamental pitch

      Enso can synchronize with the annular mode eg phase locking (Zalipin and Ghil 2010) and is amenable to certain predicates such as Arnold tongues for predicting when predicting is uncertain (Lyapunov (in)stability)

      Have you found another mechanism (apart from rediscovering of the wheel)?

    • Maks,
      If I did reinvent the wheel on this, great.
      It is really about getting at the fundamental science by building off the work of others.

      Now that we know how to model the SOI based on identical work that Maks says that Ghil has done, perhaps we can work together to produce good estimates. Are you willing or does that not fit into your agenda?

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘Sensitive dependence nonetheless does exist in the climate system, as well as in climate models— albeit in a very different sense from the one claimed in the linear work under scrutiny— and we
      illustrate it using a classical energy balance model (EBM) with nonlinear feedbacks. EBMs exhibit two saddle-node bifurcations, more recently called “tipping points,” which give rise to three distinct steady-state climates, two of which are stable. Such bistable behavior is, furthermore, supported by results from more realistic, nonequilibrium climate models. In a truly nonlinear setting, indeterminacy in the size of the response is observed only in the vicinity of tipping points. We show, in fact, that small disturbances cannot result in a large-amplitude response, unless the system is at or near such a point. We discuss briefly how the distance to the bifurcation may be related to the strength of Earth’s ice-albedo feedback…

      Systems with feedbacks are an efficient mathematical tool for modeling a wide range of natural phenomena; Earth’s climate is one of the most prominent examples. Stability and sensitivity of feedback models is, accordingly, a traditional topic of theoretical climate studies (Cess, 1976; Ghil, 1976; Crafoord and K¨all´en, 1978; Schlesinger, 1985, 1986; Cess et al., 1989). Roe and Baker (2007) (RB07 hereafter)
      have recently advocated existence of intrinsically large sensitivities in an equilibrium model with multiple feedbacks. Specifically, they argued that a small, normally distributed feedback may lead to large-magnitude, asymmetrically distributed values of the system’s response.’

      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0253.pdf

      Zaliapin and Ghil 2010 – the nonlinear and asymmetric behaviour of ENSO is not susceptible to curve fitting.

      The blogospheric braggadocio is much too tedious. Make a prediction or stfu – webby.


    • But now you seem to say it does apply at times if it’s a really elastic beam. Is that right?

      A taught skin on a square drumhead has to be elastic, otherwise it wouldn’t deflect. A nylon string stretched tight is also elastic, otherwise it wouldn’t vibrate. Both of these have clean harmonics. So this goes against what this guy wrote. It’s partly because of the fixed boundary conditions whereby standing waves are formed. If one lets the end wiggle then the length can distort and it will apparently form non-harmonic overtones.

      I am solving the problem of fixed boundary conditions and applying elliptical contours, which is a different premise.

      But still I don’t exactly know what your point is, and I don’t think you do either. You simply Googled inharmonic and anharmonic and this is the first article you came across. Contrary to your name, ThisIsNotGoodToGo, and it shows what kind of failed gotcha games that denialists play.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      WHUTTY, you now say in reply to my questions:

      ” ‘But now you seem to say it does apply at times if it’s a really elastic beam. Is that right?’

      A taught skin on a square drumhead has to be elastic, otherwise it wouldn’t deflect. A nylon string stretched tight is also elastic, otherwise it wouldn’t vibrate. Both of these have clean harmonics. So this goes against what this guy wrote. It’s partly because of the fixed boundary conditions whereby standing waves are formed. If one lets the end wiggle then the length can distort and it will apparently form non-harmonic overtones.

      I am solving the problem of fixed boundary conditions and applying elliptical contours, which is a different premise.”

      So WHUTTY, if I understand, you’re saying Fletcher’s stuff doesn’t apply to what you’re doing. Do I have you right?

      “But still I don’t exactly know what your point is, and I don’t think you do either.”
      WHUTTY, I do know what I’m asking for from you, and why.

      “You simply Googled inharmonic and anharmonic and this is the first article you came across. Contrary to your name, ThisIsNotGoodToGo, and it shows what kind of failed gotcha games that denialists play.”

      WHUTTY, that is correct that I googled and came to a page where I found what appeared to be expert opinion that I could grasp. I don’t know physics. But I know when someone avoids answering questions and tries to hide by putting out an offense when I offered nothing but inquiry to see where you stand compared to that expert’s definitions ( and why you would or would not agree with his words).

      You’re simply a bad spammer for an idea which ( after all the spamming), you are uncomfortable answering easy most basic questions about.

      Thank you for all the spam.

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘Inharmonicity due to Stiffness for Guitar Strings’ – http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/Stiffness-Inharmonicity/Stiffness-B.html

      Same with elastic beams.

      Same with cantilever beams – the harmonics are related to mass and the modulus of elasticity. A perfectly elastic string is harmonic.

      It is utterly irrelevant to climate and to ENSO. This is another silly charade.

    • ThisIsNotGoodToGo said


      I don’t know physics.

      I rubbed my eyes and I read that again


      I don’t know physics.

      Yet he said that there was something fishy. So I double-checked what he said:


      I don’t know physics.

      Ahhhh, so he is like the Chief. Now I get it.

    • Robert I Ellison

      In a p_ss_ng contest with me on climate science – you may as well plead no contest Webster.

    • Whubby waxes poetic:
      “Shall I compare thee to a summers day?
      An ocean to a beam
      I shall bend across the bough
      And take one for the team”


    • Robert I Ellison | February 25, 2014 at 1:12 am |

      In a p_ss_ng contest with me on climate science – you may as well plead no contest Webster.

      I know better than to get into that kind of contest with a Civil Engineer. They know how to build the latrines. And that deodorizer puck for target practice? what’s up wid dat?

    • Robert I Ellison

      Just remember who designed the cantilevered, inharmonic diving board next time you land in the cr@pper.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Whutty,

      This is what I found out about you and your skills, in such short order.

      Since you pretend to be an artist, and beckon all comers, but are most concerned with pigeonholing and then slandering, I knew something about you off the bat. Along with constant advertising of your product but no demonstration, I believed your skill level to be low, but better than mine.

      I engaged straight out without tricks, asking politely enough for your explanations to compare with what I quickly found on the internet, and ignored commentary from others on your worthlessness. After all, I couldn’t discern who was less wrong.

      I’ve had good teachers, and I know what that experience is like, and I observe what it takes to be good at something.

      This experience was like you are advertising yourself as a boxer, and so I tentatively tried on the gloves to have a learning experience in sparring.

      You, the braggart, invite me, the 98 lb weakling, to punch you if I can, and so clumsily I try, surprisingly touching you, just barely, but you flinch and
      your legs go weak, then start insulting.

      Now that could have been an act, you having some fun.

      But consider how you treated maksimovich rudely.
      He politely schooled you. You had no idea.

      You, in weak-kneed cowardice, need to accept that rather than fight. You know it.

      So here’s the thing.
      You asked for maksimovich’s help, to partner.
      You lacked the guts and the decency to acknowledge maksimovich’s
      superior skills…you said “if so”, “then I’m doing great”. Not “Thank you , you’re right!”.
      You didn’t outright just thank him and apologize for your rudeness.

      For maksimovich to take you as partner wouldn’t be that wise a move as
      1/you are inferior
      2/you lack courtesy
      3/you would bring unnecessary trouble and invite disrespect, because of your weak character.

      That’s all.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Apology for assuming gender of m.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Whoops! Not all. One more thing.

      You’ve adopted The Stadium Wave into your thinking.
      Have you ever sincerely, really, without sarcastic “stole from you, chumps!” attitude, thanked both authors for their work?

      All I’ve seen is continued sniping and gloating.

    • Maks thinks tides are caused by heat. Reread what he wrote.

    • Jim Cripwell

      For Webby, “detected = “ASS-U-MEd”

      (His handy-dandy model proves it.)

      Max

  73. Political Junkie

    As this sorry mess unfolds Michael Mann will find out that there are dozens of people that he has pi**ed off over the years ready to provide documented evidence to help Steyn’s case.

    It looks as though there’s a lot of Mann “dirty laundry” in many computer files and that folks such as Tallbloke are just delighted to get it out in the open in support of Stein.

    • One cool thing is that exposing the ‘exonerations’ of the whitewashes is a convenient way for the meedja to explain away their own being fooled.

      This dodging and weaving, shall I say ‘ducking’, avoids the meedja’s own culpability, lays blame on some who deserve it, leaves an out for many of the rest in science, and avoids exposing some of the big interests.
      =============

    • I offer your two comments as exhibits for my comment below.

  74. I wonder whether there is a growing schism between those skeptics who are wise enough to realize there is no evidence Mann committed fraud, and those deniers who are delusional enough to think they have proof in bits of old email.

    I wonder which side has the ear of Steyn’s defense.

    The wise skeptics have to be tearing their hair out in worry that Steyn’s team will actually try to use the masses of “evidence” being emailed them by “well-meanin’ folk”. I mean how it will look if the combined pooling of all skeptics and their blogs tried and failed to convince a Judge or Jury? Bad. You could perhaps add a Court of Law in your ever growing list of “whitewashes” if it isn’t ridiculous enough already.

    • That tune’s familiar; hum a few more bars and I’ll fake the burial.
      ============

    • kim explain again that thing you were saying about how this all gives the media an opportunity to explain away their own being fooled.

      I found that highly amusing in it’s absurdity.

      Were you just exploring some elaborate fantasy, or do you seriously think reality works like that?

      It might explain your stance on climate.

    • Sure it was speculative, but it’s plausible, particularly for the oxen gored and ungored. Plus, meedja was fooled by the ‘exonerations’, and those who led the whitewashes deserve some blame. It’s a win/win with collateral damage.
      =============

    • Matthew R Marler

      lolwot: I wonder whether there is a growing schism between those skeptics who are wise enough to realize there is no evidence Mann committed fraud, and those deniers who are delusional enough to think they have proof in bits of old email.

      There are intermediate positions: (1) there are sufficient grounds for a Grand Jury investigation (that’s what undid the protective ring around Sandusky); (2) there is probable cause for a search warrant;(3) there is no justification for UVA and PSU to resist the FOIA requests; (4) there is evidence of breach of fiducial responsibility or breach of contract by Mann. Recall when Rep. John Dingle ordered an investigation of Dr. Theresa Imanishi-Kari.

      The investigation into the CRU emails led to a conclusion that there was evidence that Dr. Phil Jones had committed a crime, but there was no prosecution because the statue of limitations had expired.

    • Now there’s some intermediation.
      =========================

    • The ACLU will take stands with groups anathema to their political beliefs, but only when it doesn’t really mater politically.

      Classic.

      Yes, “progressives” are pursing a statist society and using “CAGW” to further that aim. Yes, the ACLU is a prominent group within the “progressive” statist movement. Yes, they are on Steyn’s side here. But….

      LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!!11!!!!1!!!

  75. Dr. Curry does not need to file suit against Michael Mann to help fight his assault on free speech. She can just volunteer to be an expert witness on Steyn’s behalf.

    Publicly.

    All she need do is offer to testify to what she has already written publicly on this blog – that the “hide the decline” graph was dishonest. Some testimony about upside down Tijlander might also be helpful.

    As a climate scientist, she can also testify to Mann’s reputation in the field.

    Both of which are material to Mann’s claim of defamation.

    Steve McIntyre as a statistician could also offer to testify to Mann’s butchering of statistics in favor of presenting his favored result. (In fact Steyn will almost certainly need a statistician to testify eventually.)

    If Dr. Curry and other prominent skeptic scientists voiced not just their support, but their willingness to testify, that might well have a greater effect than another exercise in wasting attorney’s fees.

    Affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment would be a good start.

    This is a war, not on climate science, not (just) on public policy, but on the ability to speak one’s mind without the threat of being bankrupted with attorney’s fees.

    National Review has appealed the denial of the D.C. trial court’s refusal of the Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. And hopefully Steyn will follow suit (and file a notice of appeal and at least adopt whatever arguments NR makes.) So the trial litigation will probably be on hold again for a while.

    But public offers to testify in Steyn’s behalf might go a long way toward slowing, or stopping, this growing tendency to attack the exercise of free speech in the courts.

    • Gary,

      Best idea I’ve heard all day.You’re a lawyer, yes? I think Steyn continues on without representation. Not presuming to suggest anything specific to you, but this seems a great opportunity for some law firm with a nose for publicity to step up and offer some help, maybe on a pro bono basis.. What about the ACLU? ISn’t this something that might be up their alley? I know they skew liberal, but they historically have been willing to fight for unpopular..even hated groups….where speech was at issue. They couldn’t hate climate deniers any more than Nazis, could they?

      I’m probably dreaming, eh?

    • Gary,
      Annoying, but my comment to you’s gone to moderation for, I’m guessing mentioning a certain political party. Think Godwin’s law…

      Here’s the abridged version of what I wrote:

      Best idea re Judith and others I’ve heard all day.You’re a lawyer, yes? I think Steyn continues on without representation. Not presuming to suggest anything specific to you, but this seems a great opportunity for some law firm with a nose for publicity to step up and offer some help, maybe on a pro bono basis.. What about the ACLU? ISn’t this something that might be up their alley? I know they skew liberal, but they historically have been willing to fight for unpopular..even hated groups….where speech was at issue. They couldn’t hate climate deniers any more than N*****’s, could they?

      I’m probably dreaming, eh?

    • pokerguy,

      The ACLU are far left. But they do take on some contrarian causes to make a point.

      But the CAGW policy debate is at the center of the progressive movement right now. They have prevailed on education, think they are well on their way with nationalizing healthcare in the U.S., and see control of the energy economy as the next big step in “radically changing” America.

      The ACLU will take stands with groups anathema to their political beliefs, but only when it doesn’t really mater politically.

      Not to mention, Steyn seems to have been turned off on my profession (join the crowd) by his experience with the U.S. legal system to date.

      As to conservative attorneys willing to represent Steyn pro bono – if they did so, it wouldn’t be for the publicity. This is not an area of law where you could expect big paydays from future, wealthier, clients. Like in political corruption and murder cases.

      I know this will shock you, but lawyers most are no more into altruism these days than the rest of society.

    • http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/10/in-defence-of-freedom-of-speech/

      ‘Censorship of persons deemed to offend the canons of political correctness, and the ability to place issues of legitimate public
      interest beyond the reach of public debate by dressing them up
      as matters exclusively within the understanding of favoured
      ‘experts’, are but two of the ways in which not merely freedom of
      speech, but intellectual freedom itself, is under attack …’

    • Haven’t the ACLU befriended the Court along with the Press in Virginia?
      =============

    • Thanks Gary. I was also thinking about the “Citizens United” flap. Now there was a case in which they sided with a position deeply inimical to their constituency. I know they lost membership over it.

      I’m almost sure you’re right however. The consternation and rage that would ensue if they were seen aiding and abetting planet earth destroyers, might just do them in.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Gary M: If Dr. Curry and other prominent skeptic scientists voiced not just their support, but their willingness to testify, that might well have a greater effect than another exercise in wasting attorney’s fees.

      Affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment would be a good start.

      That is a good, constructive idea. How would we start? I think those in academics would suffer a huge penalty for a long time, at minimum being vilified and shunned.

      Much in defense of Steyn is in the public record, published before Steyn wrote the editorial that is the focus of the suit. It wasn’t given much weight in the first decision against summary judgment. What exactly would we agree to testify to that is novel and on point?

    • Matthew R. Marler,

      “Much in defense of Steyn is in the public record, published before Steyn wrote the editorial that is the focus of the suit. It wasn’t given much weight in the first decision against summary judgment.”

      The judge could not rule based on his personal knowledge of what he has read in the public domain. He has to rule based on evidence, including testimony. (Not sure if anyone requested a jury trial, but the analysis is the same.)

      If the case goes to trial, Steyn will be allowed to present evidence that contradicts Mann’s allegations n his complaint. In other words, he will be allowed to present evidence that his statement was not defamatory, that it was true, or that it did not cause harm to Mann’s reputation.

      On the issue of the truth of his statements, I believe Steyn would be allowed to call scientists whose testimony would support his claim that Michael Mann “tortured” the data in creating the hockey stick. Also, testimony that the graph was “dishonest” would also go to the truth of Steyn’s writings. People who argue about whether it was fraudulent in the sense of tort fraud or academic fraud are missing the boat in my opinion. Steyn was not using the term in any particular sense, other than dishonest.

      On the issue of damage to Mann’s reputation, other scientists could testify to how Mann’s own conduct has damaged his reputation in the scientific community.

      When it comes to trial, Steyn won’t be able to quote newspaper articles, he will need live bodies to testify as to their opinions.

      The point of my comment was more the effect public offers to testify, by prominent climate scientists and statisticians, could have on the proceedings, before it even got to trial. The real purpose of a suit like Mann’s is to isolate, and cause massive expense, to those who have made statements, so as to silence not only them, but others by the example they hope to make.

      Public statements of support, real support in the form of testimony, are a direct reaction to the threat. It says “We will not be silenced.”

    • Matthew R Marler

      GaryM: The judge could not rule based on his personal knowledge of what he has read in the public domain.

      No disagreement here, but what could we add? Much of the public record was referenced in Steyn’s brief before the first decision.

  76. There is a fourth issue. Protection of scientific research from industry interests, who bully scientists whose findings they find inconvenient by playing the man rather than the ball.

    There are defamation laws to protect against this kind of behavior, but they are not designed around a well funded, unending campaign. The hatred drummed up by bloggers against him are such that he has received death threats, a white-powder-covered letter, and links to defamation purchased as adwords against his name.

    How far it too far? The law should protect scientists against some of these hate crimes. And society in general should consider the value in making science the object of personal attacks.

    • @seth

      In the UK, making death threats to any citizen is a criminal offence and treated very seriously by the authorities, whatever the motive. But there is no special class of victimhood reserved for ‘scientists’ in these cases. It applies equally to everybody.

      Does the same not apply in the US? Did Mr Mann report these threats to the cops/ What action did they take?

  77. seth,

    Unfortunately, the sum total of all the climatological research to date has proved to be less useful than a piece of string.

    If the climatologists paid their own way, they probably would not attract quite so much derision. If you feel moved to refund the money stolen from me under the guise of funding scientific research, I would be appreciative.

    If not, please allow me to find some measure of comfort in an otherwise bleak situation by ridiculing the ridiculous. Or would you call for me to serve a term of imprisonment for falling to be properly respectful of stupidity?

    I’m an unbeliever. You will find trying to compel belief and respect does not have a particularly successful track record. It tends to lead to dissidents discovering sometimes inconvenient truths.

    In the meantime, you might care to support my right to free speech, to laugh at what I consider laughable, and fight to change laws which you consider need changing. Or you could just pout, stamp your feet, and then hurl yourself on the ground in a fit of pique.

    Have some fun, life isn’t that serious. If every climatologist in the world decided to go on strike, what difference would it make?

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

  78. Mann will find out that the people he abused on his way “up” will be happy to return the favor redoubled on his way down. Karma can really be a bitch.

  79. Pingback: tyranny, the motive … | pindanpost

  80. Good for you, Dr. Curry. Please continue with this moral stance. It is right and just.

  81. The countersuit’s wording makes it look like Mann wants to stifle skepticism, when actually he is only complaining about statements that accuse him, in an unfounded way, of fraud and criminality, which is a fair thing to defend himself from. There is a clear line when someone publicly accuses someone else of a criminal act, and it has nothing to do with skepticism, because it is stated as a fact that he committed fraud. If Mann has wrongfully accused anyone of criminal acts, he could be sued for those, but as far as I can tell he hasn’t except for suing against the act of libel against him.

    • “If Mann has wrongfully accused anyone of criminal acts, he could be sued for those, but as far as I can tell he hasn’t ”

      Mann repeated (retweeted) Greg Laden’s libel against me, which accused me of a criminal act.

    • Wasn’t Laden sued or threatened suit for that? And that would be right. Retweeting or quoting someone saying something wrong is not necessarily criminal in itself, only the originator of the libel may be wrongfully accusing. People just quoting can easily claim to have been misled by the originator, so that would be a hard case to make.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Jim D said:
      “If Mann has wrongfully accused anyone of criminal acts, he could be sued for those, but as far as I can tell he hasn’t except for suing against the act of libel against him”

      Jim D.
      Mann has done exactly that … he did it against McIntyre, for one.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Of course, “by exactly that”, I mean calling someone a fraud.

      Mann is a bit of a hypocrite, you know?

    • I don’t know if he did, but if you call an amateur a fraud, no one is going to lose a job if it is true. I don’t think you can charge amateurs with fraud because they have no formal professional standards to restrict their behavior. See the difference?

    • Jim: In the UK repeating a libel is itself libelous, and constitutes an offence. Mann repeated the libel before the original libeler withdrew their libel. He has not since acknowledged that the original libel was a libelous and entirely false claim. Mikey Mann is guilty of that which he accuses others of.

      In other words he’s a hypocrite.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Jim D said:
      “I don’t know if he did, but if you call an amateur a fraud, no one is going to lose a job if it is true.”

      You said you didn’t think so, but you don’t know your Mann, so you thought wrongly.

    • Jim D | February 24, 2014 at 6:16 am |
      I don’t know if he did, but if you call an amateur a fraud, no one is going to lose a job if it is true.

      I don’t know if Steve McIntyre is professionally qualified as a statistician, but the libel Mikey Mann repeated against me alleged that I am a cyber criminal. My professional career is in IT, and Greg Laden and Mikey Mann libeled me in a way that has likely damaged my career prospects. This argument of yours that it’s ok for famous people to libel little people is elitist and wrong. The thing is that (in)famous people such as Mikey are widely read, which compounds the damage their libel does to the person libeled.

    • thisnot, I don’t think fraud is a criminal act for an amateur. They can too easily plead ignorance, and are not professionally responsible for their actions. If he made money from his fraud, that would be a different story.

    • tallbloke, yes, I agree they are wrong if they wrongly assert your guilt in a crime. This is the distinction that makes it serious. It becomes uncomfortable to sue them, because then they bring out their evidence for their ideas, and if the evidence shows them to be reasonable in suspecting, that clears them. If not, you win. Given that, suing is a tough course, either way. No one truly wins.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      There was no fraud, Jim D. That was Mikey’s defensive and false ad hom attack since he lacked in the legitimate factual “defense of his work” department

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Jim D said:

      “I don’t think fraud is a criminal act for an amateur.”
      You think wrong again Jim D

    • thisisnot, so that just comes down to name-calling which is a waste of a court’s time.

    • Jim D | February 24, 2014 at 6:39 am |
      tallbloke, yes, I agree they are wrong if they wrongly assert your guilt in a crime. This is the distinction that makes it serious. It becomes uncomfortable to sue them, because then they bring out their evidence for their ideas, and if the evidence shows them to be reasonable in suspecting, that clears them.

      No it doesn’t. Casting aspersions on the basis of vague suspicions is one thing, Asserting that someone *is* guilty of a crime when they are not is open and shut case libel. The reason I didn’t sue is that I have better things to do with my life than get tangled up in time consuming litigation with fools like Mikey Mann and Greg Laden.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Jim D said:

      “thisisnot, so that just comes down to name-calling which is a waste of a court’s time.”

      No, it’s not “just name calling”. It’s a serious specific charge.

    • Barrelsful of ink can stain golden armor; Steyn’s, based in aqua regia, will dissolve it.
      ===========

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      According to Mikey it is, even when done by a satirist about a public figure.

    • DS says, and I agree, “No, they cannot plead ignorance. Ignorance of the law is no defense.” I was talking about ignorance of the science. If someone expresses a view based on incompetence, they are not guilty of anything, only if they knew they were wrong while expressing it, and even then being an amateur you are not accountable to anyone, so no one should care if you did that. It is very different for someone tenured by a university.

    • “accuse him, in an unfounded way, of fraud and criminality, which is a fair thing to defend himself from”

      No such accusation was made.

    • Mosher, OK, I’ll bite. If Mann v Steyn is not about Steyn referring to Mann’s work as fraud, what is it about? For an academic’s work, fraud is a severe charge. This is the impression anything we read about the case gives, so if you have a more accurate account of the charge it would be useful to phrase it more precisely here.

    • No such accusation was made.

      Mosher makes an excellent point,. Just like he did when he pointing out that comparing Mann to a pedophile is not necessarily comparing him to a pedophile.

  82. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    DocMartyn asserts: “FOMD has the same relationship with the truth as Mann.”

    Thank you DocMartyn! Presuming that you mean, “A healthy relationship to climate-science that is guided by microscopic physics, macroscopic thermodynamics, and observational statistics.”

    QUIZ: Is Climate-Change Skepticism Rational?

    Null Hypothesis   “There is no pause in surface-temperature warming.

    The Global Data  Up-to-date as of January 2014.

    Question for skeptics  What data-driven statistical test (if any) suffices to reject the null hypothesis (“there is no pause”) with $\latex P \le 0.05?$

    Answer  None. Therefore climate-change skepticism utterly lacks statistical foundations.

    Observation  Skeptical statistics, skeptical heat-transport physics, and skeptical thermodynamics alike are feeble.

    ——————
    Rational Conclusion  Present-day climate-change skepticism has no rational foundation in any branch of scientific inquiry.
    ——————

    Summary  Climate-change science in general (and Michael Mann in particular) already has won scientifically … and that’s why climate-change denialists are resorting to “Sandusky”-style and “Kaczinski”-style personal attacks — to the great and last harm of conservatism.

    Conclusion  Conservatives should thank Michael Mann, for motivating forums like National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Heatland Institute to rein-in the rampant ignorance and gratuitous abuse that have so grievously harmed the cause of 21st century conservatism.

    It’s not complicated, eh DocMartyn?

    Eh, skeptics?

    The world wonders!

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan: Even Phil Jones of the CRU has admitted there’s been no statistically significant warming since 1997, so why the fatuous question?

      Depending on your smoothing period, there’s been no pause in warming since the nadir of the little ice age in around 1700 AD. But the IPCC only claims the warming since around 1950 to have anything to do with co2.
      What factors do you think caused the preceding 250 years of warming, and how do you know they stopped being the principle causes in 1950 and co2 predominantly took over?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Tallbloke, not only took over, but according to Coordinating Lead Author Jonathan Overpeck, as per his 1999 Leading Edge Researcher video, it’s impossible that natural variability or the sun are drivers of the warming. Not even drivers. It’s just impossible.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      whoops! Jonathan’s 2009 video.

  83. I love Mikey’s appeal on twitter to alarmist website ‘deepclimate’
    Half a dozen posts in the last year and a half. The last one nearly a year ago.

    How deep is deepclimate?
    Somewhere around six feet by the look of it.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      the flea site is shrunken further
      someone must have sprayed

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Why are the mannish boys trolling here for traffic to that site, but none of them can give a clue of what their stunning analysis is?

      It doesn’t make me wonder enough to click, but SURELY at least one troll is intelligent enough to put words to the gibbering and explain what they think is worth a click.

    • Here’s the last comment on the ‘deepclimate’ website, last June:

      Tor B | June 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Reply
      “within a month”
      I wonder which month! I’ve been visiting this site every few days since mid April. I do look forward to the continuing saga. (I hope and pray all is well with ‘Deep Climate’.)

      A sentiment I echo. Just to be clear, my ‘six feet under’ comment refers to the moribund website, not the person who used the ‘deepclimate’ handle to write it.

    • P’raps DeepClimate is communing with the DeepHeat in the DeepOceans where (it seems likely), they will never be heard of again?

    • From the vasty deep come they.
      ===========

  84. thisisnotgoodtogo

    Looks like Mann’s big tobacco lawyers…hey, suddenly doesn’t that association mean anything any more? Where’s Naomi?

    Oh, yeah – looks like his big tobacco lawyers didn’t know their Mann either :)

  85. David Ross has a long post at QTCV …

    Fakegate and the Mann vs Steyn Case

    I decided to let the original sources (with key text highlighted) tell their own story. I have added my own commentary in between, some of which was me just thinking out loud or jotting down ideas for articles (this timeline was originally just background research). This was over several days so the tone varies. Many items are included specifically for their relevance to the Mann vs Steyn case. Treat this as a (lengthy) resource for anyone wanting to know or write about the two cases. And don’t be surprised if I repeat some of the content in shorter articles.

    • Gone fishin’ instead of a wishin’.
      Got tenney so antelopes fo’ bate.
      ==========

    • Hi, Speed. I recognized your handle from the comments thread of the Steve McIntyre post that first made the comparison between the Penn State investigations of Sandusky and Mann.

      I’m beginning to realize that that post set in train a sequence of events that is partly responsible for both Peter Gleick’s implosion and Mann’s current defamation case.

      My blog has been dormant for the last year but I’m going to devote it, over the next few weeks, to material that may help Steyn in his court battle with Mann.

  86. Academic freedom is fine up and until that work is used to shape energy policy that affects all of us.


    • JamesG | February 24, 2014 at 7:17 am | Reply

      Academic freedom is fine up and until that work is used to shape energy policy that affects all of us.

      I didn’t realize that Michael Mann was doing research on Peak Oil.

  87. Deepclimate nearly got a lawsuit himself as far as i recall.

  88. I wholeheartedly endorse Dr. Curry’s position as expressed in this post. Thanks for the courage to speak out.

    With regards to academic freedom there has to be a caveat regarding publicly funded research especially for that used to set policy. If the research includes transparency (provide the data and the methodology in sufficient detail that it the work can be replicated), then the issue of providing e-mails pretty much goes away.

    Imagine how different everything related to this controversy would be now if transparency had prevailed at the beginning.

  89. start at 1:30

  90. Serdly Morkleson

    Ms. Curry does no science here, and she really doesn’t do any science at the University anymore, so yes, I will continue to refer to her as Ms. Curry.

    Now, Deep Climate, John Mashey and discovery in this trial. Prepare for it.

    • davideisenstadt

      hundreds of articles published…thousands of cites. why dont you google scholar her?
      link:http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=judith+curry&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C39&as_sdtp=

    • My publications since 2012:

      173. Liu, J. J.A. Curry et al. 2012: Impact of declining sea ice on Arctic snowfall. PNAS, 109, 4074-4079.
      174. Choi, S., Wang, Y., Salawitch, R. J., Canty, T., Joiner, J., Zeng, T., Kurosu, T. P., Chance, K., Richter, A., Huey, L. G., Liao, J., Neuman, J. A., Nowak, J. B., Dibb, J. E., Weinheimer, A. J., Diskin, G., Ryerson, T. B., da Silva, A., Curry, J., Kinnison, D., Tilmes, S., and Levelt, P. F. 2012: Analysis of satellite-derived Arctic tropospheric BrO columns in conjunction with aircraft measurements during ARCTAS and ARCPAC, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1255-1285.
      175. Curry, JA and VI Khvorostyanov, 2012: Assessments of parameterizations of ice heterogeneous nucleation in cloud and climate models. Atmos. Phys. Chem.,10, 2669–2710
      176. Belanger, J. I., P. J. Webster, J. A. Curry, and M. T. Jelinek, 2012: Extended Prediction of North Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclones, Weather & Forecasting, 27, 757-769.
      177. Kim, H. M., P. J. Webster and J. A. Curry, 2012: Seasonal prediction skill of ECMWF System 4 and NCEP CFSv2 retrospective forecast for the Northern Hemisphere Winter, Climate Dynamics, DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1364-6.
      178. Kim, HM, PJ Webster, JA Curry 2012: Evaluation of short-term climate change predictions in multi-model CMIP5 decadal hindcasts. Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L10701.
      179. Liu, J and JA Curry, 2012: Reply to Li and Wu: Arctic sea ice and winter snowfall. PNAS, 109, E1899-E1900.
      180. Young, AH, JJ Bates, JA Curry, 2012: Complementary use of passive and active remote sensing for detecting penetrating convection from CloudSat, CALIPSO, and Aqua MODIS. J. Geophys Res. – Atmos., 117, D13205.
      181. Khvorostyanov, VI and JA Curry, 2012: Parameterization of homogeneous ice nucleation for cloud and climate models based on classical nucleation theory. Atmos. Chem. Phys.
      182. Hellmuth, O., JA Curry, et al. 2013: Review on the phenomenology of and mechanism of atmospheric ice formation: selected questions of interest. In JWP Schmelzer, G Ropke, VB Priezzhev, eds.: Nucleation Theory and Its Applications, JINR Dubna, p 424-543.
      183. Liu, J., JA Curry, HJ Wang, JM Horton, MR Song, 2012: Reply to Li and Wu: Arctic sea ice and winter snowfall. PNAS, 109, E1899-E1900.
      184. Muller, R., J.A. Curry, et al. 2013: Decadal variations in the global land temperature. J. Geophys. Res., in press.
      185. Wickham, C., R. Rohde, R. Muller, J. Wurtele, J.A. Curry, D. Groom, Ro. Jacobsen, S. Perlmutter, A. Rosenfeld 2013: Influence of urban heating on the global temperature land average using rural sites identified from MODIS classifications. Geoinformatics & Geostatistics, doi:10.4172/gigs.1000104.
      186. Rohde, R., R. Muller, R. Jacobsen, S. Perlmutter, A. Rosenfeld, J. Wurtele, D. Groom, J.A. Curry, C. Wickham, 2013: Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process. Geoinformatics and Geostatistics, doi:10.4172/gigs.1000103.
      187. Muller, R., J. Wurtele, R. Rohde, R. Jacobsen, S. Perlmutter, A. Rosenfeld, JA Curry, D. Groom, C. Wickham, 2013: Earth atmosphere land surface temperature and station quality in the United States. J. Geophys. Res., under revision.
      188. Curry JA, 2013: Climate change: No consensus on consensus. CAB Reviews, 8, 001.
      189. Holley, AH, JJ Bates and JA Curry, 2013: Application of cloud vertical structure from CloudSat to investigate MODIS-derived properties of cirriform, anvil, and deep convective clouds. J. Geophys. Res., DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50306.
      191. Wyatt, MG and JA Curry, 2013: Dynamics of the propagation of a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century. Climate Dynamics
      192. Belanger, JI, JA Curry, MT Jelinek, 2013: Revisiting the tropical cyclone-easterly wave relationship on interannual time scales. J. Climate, submitted.
      193. Belanger, JI, VT Toma, JA Curry, PJ Webster, MT Jelinek, 2013: Climate dynamics & interannual variability of easterly waves in the North Atlantic and East Pacific. Geophys. Res. Lett., submitted.

      Note: I also have a book in press

    • And there I thought that Judith had been muzzled by the “gatekeepers” in the cabal, in an attempt to silence her because any deviance from the “religious belief” in “CAGW” is intolerable.

      And so much for the argument that you can only get funding and you can only get published if you pitch your research as intending to prove that ACO2 introduces the risk of climate change.

      Funny how peer review is an “appeal to authority” and a censoring mechanism intended to marginalize “skeptics” except when it isn’t, eh?

      • No problems with getting papers published related to physical processes in the atmosphere and ocean. It was a challenge getting the Berkeley Earth papers published.

    • “Ms. Curry does no science here, and she really doesn’t do any science at the University anymore, so yes, I will continue to refer to her as Ms. Curry.”

      Hmmm. I thought the team adopted a very specific honorific for someone that fits that description: “nobel laureate”

      Dr. Curry is not a nobel laureate.

    • Matthew R Marler

      curryja: My publications since 2012:

      Not that anyone cares, but that is why I (almost) always refer to you as Prof Curry, except as there when quoting a post.

      Please let us know when your book comes out. Would you like an extra proof-reader? I proof read two statistics books prior to their publication, both in the Springer series. I can supply a reference.

    • Joshau,

      Yes, it is just awful to see how the science heretics are ex-communicated from the Church of the Consensus.

      I weep for poor Judith.

    • Heh. Usually I say Dr Curry, or if I am doing something informal, Judith or Judy.

      But Ms Curry? That’s like referring to a serving officer in the military as Mr/Ms XXX. You can call them General, or Fred/rika, depending on the circumstances. It is like calling a priest Mr XXX. Totally inappropriate and potentially misleading.

    • Michael -

      Yes, it is just awful to see how the science heretics are ex-communicated from the Church of the Consensus.

      It certainly is interesting how some “skeptics” are absolutely driven to justify a sense of victimization, to reinforce a self-identificaiton as a band of noble and cunning David’s fighting against the mean and cruel Goliaths. The poor “serfs,” one and all, striving against the tyrannical children-starvers that persecute them mercilessly.

      One wonders what they’d be like if they weren’t more privileged than the vast majority of people alive and an even higher % of the people who have ever lived. There would be no end to the hand-wringing. We’d need 100 times more dentists to care for all the teeth gnashed to a nub. Stores would simply not be able to keep pearls for clutching and couches for feinting in stock.

    • Judith certainly has the victim card at hand, ready to play at the drop of a hat.

      The question is, where does this strong sense of victimhood come from? Hasn’t got the recognition she thinks she deserves? GIT not prestigious enough for her?

      I think it plays a strong role in her m0tivated reas0ning.

    • For someone who is a guest on this blog I find your comments offensive and a complete waste of cyberspace. To have you on the same side of any argument would make me cringe and the orthodox climate scientists would not need any more enemies with you as their friend.

    • Ms Curry:

      You have nothing to prove to anyone here. Suggest do not respond to mean spirited trolls who’s only purpose is to get a reaction. None of them have ever contributed anything to the sum of knowledge. Hold the line, stay above the fray and remain professional. It’s the only way to win against this rag bag of bad faith, agenda and misrepresentation. Thinking of that Kipling quote here: Where all is chaos, or something similar :-)

      They get more desparate by the day as is shown by ever more extreme ad hominem and now even court cases. A sure sign that the man has lost the argument and is trying to bludgeon the way forward. What next we ask ?…

    • Peter,

      It’s true that I don’t aspire to be an A grade arese-kisser such as yourself.

      However, I’m led to believe that critique is at the heart of scepticism.

      your rejection of it suggests that youmay less an objective skeptic,than yet another cheer-leader for your preferred ‘team’.

    • Sorry Michael, my post was in reply to Serdly’s initial post. In fact, I don’t find your posts generally offensive at all and your POV is always respected if not entirely agreed with.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Prof Curry,

      FWIW ($0.02?), I ordered your book. I look forward to it. I am always on the lookout for good reads.

  91. Serdly Morkleson

    And this is a science denial blog. Now any comments about Deep Climate because your boy McIntyre is in Deep Sheet and even Ms. Curry’s recent testimony in congress has already been dissassembled enough to reveal a fib. That’s going to come up in discovery, as are all Mashey’s research.

    • Abserdly Snorkles Writes:
      ” Now any comments about Deep Climate because “

      Oh goody, threats. I think I’ll post the song I wrote about ‘Deepclimate Dave’ on youtube. I think I might publish the email he sent me and Jerry Ravetz too.

    • davideisenstadt

      your post is that of a willfully ignorant person… why not post under your real name so we casn google scholar you?
      you are just like one of oscar wilde’s critics… you know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.
      why not just shut up?

    • Yeah, Rog Tallbloke’s name is a secret known only to anyone who has access to his website, not to mention Google.

      It’s a conspiracy, I tells ya!

    • david,

      We should respect the on-line pseudonym – the content of the argument is what matters.

      All that uber-creepy, we’re-going-to-find-who-you-realy-are-stuff, is best left to the stalkers, weirdo’s and nutters over at WUWT.

    • Mashey, schmashey.

      Whodat?

    • Yes David, I have entries on Google Scholar

      http://goo.gl/7Nn9pU

      Is this you?
      Eisenstadt, David. The Role of Blue Shield in the Health Services Sector. Diss. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Illinois/Urbana, 1979.

  92. ‘Judith’, ‘JC’ works too. The only people using ‘Dr.’ are the ones spamming this thread with vitriol, using the title to belittle her.

    • Actually I tend to use Dr. Curry out of respect and because I do not know her. Not that anyone calls me Dr. Wojick although they could.

    • @ freeHat

      Not me; I call her Dr. Curry because that is who she is: a PhD department head at a major university who runs a blog with readers around the world and allows me to post my opinions on it freely.

      Of course, allowing me to post freely, with no ‘moderator training wheels’ may be a mixed blessing to me, but I appreciate it anyway.

      Thank you Dr. Curry

  93. Serdly Morkleson

    I do believe that’s commonly referred to as ‘argument by authority’ Ms. Curry. Now hear this, thousands of people have been following your comments like a bunch of Wisconsin progressives going through Scotty Walker’s emails, and so if you think that these comments of yours, especially the one’s in testimony before congress, are going to go unnoticed and unrecorded then you better start thinking ‘discovery’.

    Just FYI.

    • Uh no, this correcting your incorrect assertion that I was no longer doing science and publishing

    • If you believe you can intimidate anyone here, you are fooling yourself. What a crock!

    • Brave words from a know-nothing cowardly troll. Show us your list of publications and C.V.

    • @Serdly Morkleson

      ‘…the one’s in testimony before congress….’

      I don’t believe that the apostrophe is needed. The idea ‘the one’ is not possessing anything nor are any letters omitted. It is a simple plural and ‘the ones’ would be correct. But as a matter of style, the sentence would read better if you used ‘those’ instead.

      And also as a matter of style, shouldn’t ‘Congress’ have a capital C?

      Just sayin’….

    • Serdly Morkleson wrote, ” if you think that these comments of yours, especially the one’s in testimony before congress, are going to go unnoticed and unrecorded then you better start thinking ‘discovery’.”

      What fool would hypothesize that a rational person would hide comments inside testimony before a congressional committee?

      http://www.bing.com/search?q=judith+curry+congress&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=judith+curry+congress&sc=0-13&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=09fed24d14a449d09ec8fdbc09b4a460

    • Serdly Morkleson

      You warn our hostess here:

      if you think that these comments of yours, especially the one’s in testimony before congress, are going to go unnoticed and unrecorded then you better start thinking ‘discovery’.

      I can’t speak for Dr. Curry, but I could imagine that the last thing she is worried about is someone checking the validity of her statements to congress. They seem pretty consistent, allowing (of course) for any new discoveries since the last statement.

      In her 2008 statement to the Baird congressional committee she testified:

      Anthropogenic climate change is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain.

      The threat from global climate change does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century even in its most alarming incarnation.

      It seems more important that robust policy responses be formulated rather than to respond urgently with policies that may fail to address the problem and whose unintended consequences have not been adequately explored.

      This seems to be consistent with her latest testimony.

      Do you see anything wrong or inconsistent here?

      If so, what?

      Max

    • You’d think with those “thousands” working so diligently that someone could’ve pointed this clown to the principals in the case.

      Snidely Whiplash talking about “discovery”… You guys are better than my netflix subscription.

  94. You’re so angry Turdly Mickleson, what’s up?

  95. Pingback: Mark Steyn: Amphibious Albion | Tallbloke's Talkshop

  96. Heh. Game, set, match: Judith
    Your best response is to lapse into Monty Python “Does a witch weigh more than a duck?” mode. You truly are your own worst enemies.

  97. Serdly Morkleson

    I haven’t made any assertions about you, Ms. Curry, just a little head’s up on the complete dissassembly of every comment you’ve ever made on this topic and the upcoming discovery that will surely be all over the news.

    Good luck with that, Ms. Curry. I wish you well. All I can recommend to you as someone familiar with litigation is … keep talking!

    • Go for it . . . should be entertaining

    • Surly Snarkling says:
      “as someone familiar with litigation”

      How many hours community service did you get last time?

    • Matthew R Marler

      Serdly Morkleson: I haven’t made any assertions about you, Ms. Curry,

      That is not true. You asserted that she was no longer really doing science: Ms. Curry does no science here, and she really doesn’t do any science at the University anymore, so yes, I will continue to refer to her as Ms. Curry.

    • barn E. rubble

      Oh,no! Snerdley has disassembled comments, sorry I mean – COMPLETELY disassembled – comments by the THOUSANDS, no less.
      (As if the threat of sort’a disassembled comments weren’t enough.)
      And worse! He’s even got disassembled Congressional testimony! In-hand and ready to go over the top! We’re doomed! Whatever shall we do!

      Oh wait, there’s help Snerdley. Apparently over @SkS there’s a course on assembling &/or re-assembling these sorts things (comments, testimony, quotes verbotchum, etc.) just so they read properly.

      So we’re OK . . .?

  98. Serdly Morkleson

    Climate change: No consensus on consensus. Sure, uh huh. I’ve looked over some of your more recent papers, Ms. Curry and quite honestly, compared to MM they’re crap. It’s like make work welfare for civil servants.

    • MM – you mean McIntyre and McKitrick?

    • I should just keep my trap shut, but Judith let the ravers rave and the droolers drool. It’s like arguing with Josh, only worse because this fellow appears mentally ill…. as opposed to simply character disordered in the case of Joshua.

    • barn E. rubble

      RE: Nerdley Snorkleson
      “. . . and quite honestly, compared to MM they’re crap. . . .”

      Now do you mean ‘crap’ in the same sense most us do? Or are you using the Trademarked RealCimolotoligst meaning of ‘crap’? IE: as in how Mann’s work has been referred to as ‘crap’ by his most esteemed colleagues. I’m assuming the latter is a good thing. I’ve gathered ‘quite honestly’ means something else among your circles/cult . . .

    • Matthew R Marler

      Serdly Morkleson: I’ve looked over some of your more recent papers, Ms. Curry and quite honestly, compared to MM they’re crap.

      So you are honestly digging yourself into a deep hole.

    • Uh oh. Another assertion from the local internet tough guy. Whatever shall we do?

  99. Serdly Morkleson

    MM – you mean McIntyre and McKitrick?

    In you’re wildest dreams, JC.

    • Will J. Richardson

      “In [you are] wildest dreams, JC.” Surely you mean “your”, Serdly. The spell checker does not do grammar. Did your new health care plan discontinue your meds?

    • Michelson and Morley perhaps?

    • Might Mouse; as we all know, MM is the finest American rodent superhero, although not as good a Danger Mouse, who is a much more refined English rodent hero.

    • Head’s up, they’re…..

      Hopefully the deep oceans will start swallowing up Serd’s surplus of apostrophes.

  100. Serdly Morkleson

    Show us your list of publications and C.V.

    Argument from authority and credentialism. Now back to disassembly of your statements Ms. Curry. HotWhopper, Tamino, Victor Venema …

    Do I have to provide you with links? Keep talking, Ms. Curry.

    • A bit early in the day for the hard stuff isn’t it, old boy? Maybe a few pegs after sundown, but not before the sun’s over the yardarm.

      Take it easy with the tonsil oil.

    • You have none so you argue from personal ignorance while citing authority.

      “I’ve looked over some of your more recent papers, Ms. Curry and quite honestly, compared to MM they’re crap.”

    • davideisenstadt

      more like argument from lack of authority and credentialism, on your part.

    • Latimer:

      >>> Take it easy with the tonsil oil….

      I would have thought a large cucumber would be more the style, as there must be something missing somewhere.

      Extreme frustration and anger at being (again) exposed for what they are is it’s own reward…

    • @chris quayle

      Anger, most definitely. But I think I detect there’s an undercurrent of fear as well.

      He/she/it/they know that a day in court will not go well for them and yet such a day is racing towards them. They know in heir hearts that their hero Mr Mann will prove no better a witness under hostile questioning in the real world than his various representatives and manifestations here do in the virtual one.

      And even if the case(s) never get that far, their own actions have provided a wonderful catalyst for everybody to dig deep into their records and begin to assemble the evidence of the many ‘misconducts’ that Mr Mann and his dwindling band of buddies has achieved. His nemesis McSteve has been prompted to pick up his quill once more…Rog T is reminded of a long-dormant sore. Mr Mann’s own recent conduct on Twitter gives the lie to the notion that he is a reluctant public figure…..and so it goes.

      So the nett effect of Mr Mann’s thin skin and obsession with his own self-image has been to focus the laser light of ‘discovery’ upon him. And such a light shows the warts and all.

      Great strategic move, Mikey!. Next week : Mikey invades Russia in November…

  101. Serdly Morkleson

    correcting your incorrect assertion that I was no longer doing science and publishing

    I didn’t say publishing, I said science. Your have diminished your reputation as a scientist to the extent that nobody bothers to disassemble your papers anymore, and you have enhanced your reputation as a Roger Jr. redux to the extent that EVERYONE from now on will be looking closely at everything you say here on this blog, in public, and in congressional testimony. NOTHING is going to escape dissassemby and analysis.

    Discovery Ms. Curry, coming soon to a courtroom near you, lol.

    • Must be a bummer having all the observational data crumble your world. It is only going to get worse. Do you think there are any board games that might get you through it?

    • Sorry no one is buying your BS. Ms. Curry is all class; you act like a petulant child. Shades of Micky Mann with the same level of maturity.

    • @Serdly Morkelson

      1. ‘nobody bothers to disassemble your papers anymore’
      2. ‘NOTHING is going to escape dissassemby and analysis.’

      So which one is it? 1 or 2? It can’t be both. They are mutually exclusive unless you have some mechanised process which could plausibly be described as ‘nobody’ to do the disassembly.

      PS In statement 2 you have too many ‘s’es in ‘dissassembly’.
      PPS Are you a refugee from ‘Deltoid’? Your easygoing downhome style and laidback approach suggests that you probably are. Reminds me of a 1960s James Stewart Christmas TV Special……

    • Serdly’s probabaly just another anti-American, Constitution-bashing, individual-liberty-hating communist like many of Obama’s minions. Hopefully, people like this can be stripped of US citizenship some day. If this person even is a US citizen.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Murphy, someone’s feeling the sausage hole after this weekend, man!

    • Serdly,
      If you have specifics anout issues rather than nasty insults hurled from an anonymous hiding place discuss them. Don’t filibuser the blog.
      Scott

    • Who said that Warmers aren’t psychopaths?

      Andrew

    • Scott Basinger

      Speaking of denial, this troll’s threads really made me chuckle. Nothing makes you look more silly than when you call someone ‘anti science’ and they have to truncate their publications to 2012 so that it only fills a page in response.

      I wonder if they’re one of the team’s graduate students. Judging from the quality of their posts, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

    • Say Kim, what kind of threads was the troll wearing? Were they pajamas by any chance?

    • Matthew R Marler

      Serdly Morkleson: Your have diminished your reputation as a scientist to the extent that nobody bothers to disassemble your papers anymore,

      lol

      Even climate alarmist WebHubTelescope (among the CE denizens) liked the published stadium wave hypothesis. He isn’t alone.

    • Folks, you are taking this “Serdly” jerk much too seriously.

      He “warned” our hostess that she would be called to account for her statements to congress (before the “Politburo” or “Propagandaministerium”?)- and she is just shrugging it off.

      Let the poor guy rant.

      Max

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      What’s the worst criticism coming from climate scientists of the Stadium Wave paper, that anyone’s heard?
      It seems to have gone over pretty well.

      What say you, Sniveldy?

    • Where the stadium wave gets murky is when projecting it forwards without accounting for CO2 rising 4 times faster than 60 years ago, and saying to expect a flat trend for a few decades based on it. Highly dubious projections like this do a disservice to the paper’s work which was on past data.

    • First a claim that “thousands” – no, really – are pouring over her recent testimony, then name dropping numerous alarmist blogs ( with no links) to show how many are coming for her, now the claim that no one bothers with her work anymore…

      This is just so deliciously sad.


    • Even climate alarmist WebHubTelescope (among the CE denizens) liked the published stadium wave hypothesis. He isn’t alone.

      The Stadium Wave LOD is the last contributing factor in the CSALT model (apart from volcanic aerosols) that I lack a predictive capability for. The fact that it only exhibits slow multi-decadal changes gives us some time to figure it out.

      The Stadium Wave is great because it hammers home the main contributing factor that is CO2. Subtract out the compensating factor of the Stadium Wave and the other natural fluctuation factors and the monotonic rise due to CO2 control knob is clear.

      We have to thank Wyatt & Curry for this reduction in uncertainty.

    • I can help Whubby out with his desire for a way to predict LOD. He needs to read my second paper where he’ll find a nice plot of a predictable variable which correlates with LOD very well indeed.

      http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/199/2013/prp-1-199-2013.pdf

      I can also help him out with his control knob fixation. This plot shows when sea level actually started accelerating (around 1850, not 1950 when co2 level increase accelerated) and when glacier shortening decelerated (around 1975, when ‘global warming’ got going).

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Wonder if all this time the bumfluff was trying to say “deconstruct” ?
      Greenpeace cupcake. Yup.

  102. Judith -

    so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.

    heh. “Consensus police.”

    I remember when Peter Lang was talking about the “consensus police” as a fantasized explanation for why your website went off-line because of some technological glitch. Something about the “consensus police” closing it down out of fear of the devastating impact of one of his thousands of blog comments.

    I think that might have been the first time I saw the phrase.

    I will just note how your language has traveled in this debate, Judith, and hold out hope that it is not truly reflective of how your analytical views have transitioned – but only an unfortunate by-product of certain rhetorical choices.

  103. thisisnotgoodtogo

    Oh noes!!! They’re threatening a tour of Credence Deepclimate Revival!

    • After 4!
      “Well, m’names Deepclimate Dave, an’ I like to rant’n’rave
      ‘Bout those pesky sceptics clogging up the net
      We’re gonna get ‘em jailed lin, or fenced beyond the palin’
      ‘Cause freespeakin’ ain’t the way we like to bet.”

  104. thisisnotgoodtogo

    Known to people a bit smarter, as “Credulence”.

  105. thisisnotgoodtogo

    “Now hear this”

    Where have we heard this before? Weepy Bill’s gang? Hmmm.

  106. thisisnotgoodtogo

    Got it. Greenpeace slogan.

  107. This is becoming fun to watch. JC, you may soon become one of the few people in history that sees that tide turn in the favor of their position in their own life time.

    While that is a great thing for you, so much the more so for the rest of us. When “serial defamation” (i.e. MM) is finally discredited, when scientists abandon consensus in favor of supported conclusion and when opinion and conclusion are finally held in abeyance until the data is complete, we will all benefit from the ascendance of objective truth over subjective projection. Your willingness to “fall on your dagger” has already accomplished much that is of benefit to all.

  108. I think Mann is probably regretting filing the suit in the first place. It has done nothing to improve his public image, and is now threatening to leave him completely open to public disclosure of his academic work and contacts. Steyn is going to win in the end- there is simply no way Mann can prevail on libel/slander grounds. I am just dumbfounded that Mann tossed Steyn into the briar patch. What a moron.

    • Nicely put, Yancey.

      “Oh, please, please don’t throw me into the briar patch!”

      (Steyn) Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    • Actually, he’s just taken at an almighty swing at the tar baby.

    • Actually, he’s just taken at an almighty swing at the tar baby.

      And, from the looks of it, missed completely and yanked his arm out of joint in the process.

      Hiding the decline was much easier.

  109. I wonder if Mann, taking the implied advise of the New York Times, has started storing icicles to stab people with whom he disagrees.

    http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/see-something-say.html?ref=opinion&_r=0#1

  110. This snerdly clown almost makes joshie look human. You better run him off, joshie. He is stealing your spotlight. Send his little butt back to SKS.

    • Serdly is the new “Robert.”

      Or maybe it is “Robert.”

      Andrew

    • barn E. rubble

      RE: Don Monfort | February 24, 2014 at 12:46 pm
      “This snerdly clown almost makes joshie look human. . . .”

      He seems to have tagged in for Mickey the M. of Trollville . . . perhaps Nobel Mann has sounded the alarm (yeah, again-only different) and released the hounds . . . what formidable forces indeed.

    • Serdly is the new “Robert.”

      Naw. Don’t think so. Robert was just a bit goofy, but Serdly is snarly.

      Both are trolls, but they use a different MO.

  111. Despite a 1 in 100 chance California may be two years into a 100-year drought, there is a 100% chance of rain before the end of the week.

  112. JC. Good summary, well said. Regretfully however, I do not think that the US judiciary are much into “big boy pants” and seem influenced by what they percieve as their political masters wishes. They have proven to be highly adept at finding grey areas that can be interpreted in any way one chooses and so a couple of high profile climate cases have fairly recently foundered or received setbacks due to this very characteristic.

    Mann’s predeliction for tort seems almost childish, perhaps its time he acquired some “big boy pants” and stopped wasting other people’s time.

    • Mr mann continues to want to waste everybody’s tome.

      Here he is on Twitter within the last hour , soliciting for favourable Amazon reviews

      ‘Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 56m
      Another 1* Amazon drive by on “The Hockey Stick & Climate Wars”. Anyone w/ half a brain like to review?’

      I replied

      ‘Author soliciting for favourable reviews? Is that quite ethical? Oh – its ‘No Nobel Mikey’…’nuff said.’

    • @ Latimer Alder

      “‘Michael E. Mann ‏@MichaelEMann 56m
      Another 1* Amazon drive by on “The Hockey Stick & Climate Wars”. Anyone w/ half a brain like to review?’”

      How about ‘Anyone with half a brain would be overqualified by 400%, minimum.’.

  113. Political Junkie

    Hilarious comment about a Mann quote after confessed criminal Peter Gleick’s own Pacific Institute rather unconvincingly “cleared” him.

    Mann wrote: “I’m very pleased to learn that Peter [Gleick] has been exonerated.”

    David Ross writes:

    “This quote from Mann is very relevant to the Mann vs. Steyn case, where Mann claims that he has been “exonerated” by numerous investigations. If the the above is what Mann means by “exonerated” then “exonerated” to him means committing criminal fraud with the approval and connivance of the climate-establishment.”

    Nice!

    http://qtcv.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/fakegate-and-the-mann-vs-steyn-case/

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “Hilarious comment about a Mann quote after confessed criminal Peter Gleick’s own Pacific Institute rather unconvincingly “cleared” him.

      Mann wrote: “I’m very pleased to learn that Peter [Gleick] has been exonerated.”

      I would be pleased to know the exact wording of what “the thing” was, that Mikey thinks he was exonerated of, i.e. what he had been accused of.
      Exonerated of impersonation email fraud theft forgery or what?

      Probably something not very descriptive, like “conduct unbecoming”.
      or nothing at all. Exonerated of nothing at all. yeah, that’s the ticket.
      Not even what he admitted to!
      hohohohohoho, sad Mikey

  114. Data Techniques

    My computer models say the atmosphere is warming at an alarming rate.

    Mikey’s tree ring data was made to reinforce computer model outputs.

    But my data says my computer model and Mikey’s trees are as bogus as Alchemist’s Gold.

    When your models and trees disagree with your data, always trust your data.

    Of course, trust real data not the NOAA/NASA data that has been waterboarded into new, strange and twisted shapes.

    • DT, you write “When your models and trees disagree with your data, always trust your data.”

      I have been beating the empirical data drum ever since Climate Etc started. The warmists are, I suspect, getting a little tired of my stating, over and over again, just about the same thing you have written, So I suspect you will receive very little in the way of comments.

      But maybe I can persuade to join my newly formed Zero Climate Sensitivity Club (ZCSC). Since no-one has measured a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph, it follows that there is a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2, added to the atmosphere from current levels, is 0.0 C to 1 place of decimals or 2 significant figures.

  115. How strange that after a splatter of spite from Serdly there is a brief blogging intermission before we endure a maximum of moronity from Michael.

    And the two are never seen together in the same room. H’mmm

    • You’d think a self-proclaimed skeptic would have the minimal crtical thinking skills to consider time zones.

      Even my lowly expectations of the ‘skeptics’ do them much too much credit.

    • @michael

      Thanks for confirming that you two know each other.

    • Lattie, Michael is one of the non-insane Australians that comment here. It’s very easy to confirm who is from there based on when they comment.

    • Oh Lati!……

    • Mrs Wilma Hub Telescope

      @webster, son of wilma and wilbur

      Strange then, that with the exception of one sleepless night (an overindulgence of bile or a full bladder in the wee small hours?) Michael keeps pretty regular USA working hours.

      Perhaps he is a ‘public servant’ at a university or something and so has plenty of time on his hands to lecture us all on the error of our ways and the fine example set by his co-named hero.

    • Mrs WHT,

      WHT is correct as to my usual location -just happen to be in Europe at the moment.

    • You can tell when you get under Latimer Alder’s skin.
      He starts taking on multiple s0ckpuppet handles.

  116. Warming and cooling occurred in the past. Why is it, that warming is expected to suddenly not happen without man-made CO2. It always worked before. They never told us what stopped working. That is not part of Consensus Climate Theory. They took it out, but they don’t talk about it and they certainly don’t write about it so we can check on their reasoning, or, lack or reasoning. They have not explained what caused the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods that cannot and did not cause the Modern Warm Period.

    Oops, I forget, they tell us the Roman and Medieval Warm periods did not really happen. The Hockey Stick is the basis that started this case.

    Climate Models and Climate Theory have an eleven thousand year long hockey stick. Climate Data does not agree, but Model Output is what they are 97% sure of.
    Not matching actual data is a real thorn in their side, but they make sure the IPCC does not use the real data. They go to court and sue people who disagree.

    The really good news is that they, in court, they only have Consensus Model Output, WITH NO DEMONSTRATED SKILL, on their side and NO ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA, which is all against them.

    Hockey Stick Model Output follows the average and turns up sharply in recent times. Nothing like Actual Real Earth Data.

    Actual data goes up and down for eleven thousand years and is still not up to the peak that the current warming should achieve, based on what has happened many times before.

    • “Why is it, that warming is expected to suddenly not happen without man-made CO2. It always worked before. They never told us what stopped working.” – HAP

      Noture how “they” are, but it isn’t , nothing has “stopped working” and noone has suggested any such thing. Short term natural variability is still natural variabilty, and massive swings in climate will occur in the future…..mostly over very very long time periods

      We are meant to be on a 10,000-20,000 yr slide into the next ice-age…

    • If nothing stopped working, then this is warming was supposed to be a warming time and Man-Made CO2 warming is a crock.

  117. Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.

    I recently went to a Boy Scout car race event. One of the Scout Leaders is a Weather guy with the National Weather Service near here. I did talk to him about my Pope’s Climate Theory and did ask his opinion. He told me he is not “ALLOWED” to express his opinion. I asked for an “off the record opinion”.
    He told me he is not “ALLOWED” to express his “off the record opinion”.

    I am going to rework Dr Judy’s words a little bit.
    Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists and everyone else are “free to express their opinions” without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.

    • ” I did talk to him about my Pope’s Climate Theory and did ask his opinion. He told me he is not “ALLOWED” to express his opinion. I asked for an “off the record opinion”.
      He told me he is not “ALLOWED” to express his “off the record opinion”. ” – Pope

      A telling, anonymous,vague, unverifiable, 2nd hand, anecdote.

      Is it just possible he just wanted to get rid of the guy wanting to talk to him about some crazy personal weather theory, on his day off?

    • Is it just possible he just wanted to get rid of the guy wanting to talk to him about some crazy personal weather theory, on his day off?

      No, this is not possible. A weather man who does not want to talk about Climate. NOT POSSIBLE!

    • If he did disagree with me, he would have talked to me.

    • Talking about the weather is one thing, and having your ear bashed by some strange crank espousing their pet theory , is quite another.

      I’m afarid you might have to consider the possbility that he would have chewed his own arm off, just to get away from you.

    • Michael,

      I would not be surprised to discover you are a member of the Wonderfully Wacky Warmist cult. You would have noticed, no doubt, that popesclimatetheory uses the word climate in his nom-de-plume. He also wrote about his climate theory.

      Only a Wobbly Wandering Warmist could turn climate into weather whilst attempting a derogatory smear, and assume this would not be noticed.

      Can I point out to you that climate is held by the Chief Warmists to be the average of weather measurements over an arbitrary period of time. The Book of Warm demands that cult members examine and reexamine the averages in the hope that a different interpretation may emerge.

      This would appear to fit the anecdotal definition of insanity, where only an insane person expects a different outcome from repeating the same actions over and over in an obsessive fashion.

      Should you require any further assistance in being able to discriminate between weather and climate, the internet can be a valuable source.

      If you still cannot satisfy yourself as to the difference between weather and climate, I would be pleased to help.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • Government Employees are allowed to talk in favor of Consensus, but they are not allowed to disagree.

      Hansen and Mann for example.

    • Mike Flynn

      What is Climate?

      What is Weather?

      It’s really quite simple, according to the “Wonderfully Woeful Warmist Wacky inverse C:W theory”

      If it Cools – it’s Weather

      If it Warms – it’s Climate

      Works every time.

      Max

    • I’m afraid you might have to consider the possibillity that he would have chewed his own arm off, just to get away from you.

      So you believe the National Weather Service People would rather lie than talk to someone. This is a Boy Scout Leader.

      It is very wrong for you to say he might rather lie than discuss climate.

    • Maybe he was worried you would quote him on a blog somewhere by name, and distort what he said into agreeing with your own theory. I think he was wise not to give you any words to select from. A similar rule should be followed for talking to journalists, who also insert quotes into their own agenda-driven context. It is surprising what you can do with a quote.

    • Max,

      You want wacky? go checkout Pope’s Climate Theory.

      It appears to consist of 12 words, 3 of which are its title.

      Perhaps these words were choosen with extraordinary care and precision…..though against that idea is the fact that in these 9 words, Pope suggests that the ocean could exist in a state of reduced wetness.

      A truly phenomenal achievement, even for the Climate Clowns of Climate Etc.

      Web, is this one in your ‘Catalogue of Climate Clowns and Cranks’?

    • Michael,

      I am pleased you now understand the difference between weather and the average of weather. It is not terribly hard, even for anybody of minimal intellect.

      If you feel that threatening to chew your arm off is of importance to strangers, I suggest that threatening to eat worms might be less injurious to your health. Maybe threatening to throw a tantrum would suffice. They all have the same effect, that is, generating laughter at a fool threatening to chew off his arm.

      Unless you have a fact or two to contribute, or even a Wonderfully Winsome Warmist hypothesis capable of being verified experimentally, you will probably be treated with the usual derision accorded to the dimwit who brings a limp lettuce leaf to a gunfight.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • droning,mike, droning.

    • The best thing about Pope’s ‘Climate Theory’, besides the weird wet ocean stuff, is that his 9 word opus places him firmly in the climate science consensus.

    • Michael,

      I am pleased to have been of assistance. I assume that you have not carried out your threat to chew off your arm. Pity, the spectacle would have provided some light relief.

      I note you are still reading what I write. Good for you!

      Or have I misjudged you, and you utter derogatory comments about things you can’t be bothered to read? I wish you well in either case.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • David Springer

      And you bagging on Cripwell at every opportunity, what does that say Steven?

      • David Springer

        Both the above orphaned comments were in response to Steven Mosher whose comments were evidently deleted by the moderator. In case anyone is wondering. Looks like Steven’s attempts at relevant content is no longer buying him as much forgiveness as it did in the past.

      • I’m often curious to know exactly what is required to get moderated here, and this thread seems no exception. Judith’s requests for improved standards seems a long time ago.

      • T. G. Horal

        michael,
        In the UK, they have now cut the subsidies for wind and improved power standards will soon follow these changes across the globe.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10670115/Wind-farm-plans-in-tatters-after-subsidy-rethink.html

      • The market is contesting arrival.
        =================

      • A market to rule them all.

      • David Springer

        Mosh bagging on Cripwell?

        I’d see this more as the classic debate between a rationally skeptical empiricist (Cripwell) and a somewhat less skeptical believer in the virtual world of computer models (Mosh).

        The only common ground they both share is intelligence and knowledge of the subject matter.

        For Cripwell the only real evidence is empirical data, based on actual physical measurements or reproducible experimentation (the Feynman approach), while Mosh has more faith in model outputs based largely on physical laws and theoretical considerations (the IPCC approach).

        When it comes to our climate, neither side can win this debate by convincing the other.

        Probably more frustrating for Mosh than for Cripwell.

        Just my impression, David.

        Max

      • Jim Cripwell

        I must have missed all the fun. For some reason, Steven seems to not like me personally.

      • “Probably more frustrating for Mosh than for Cripwell”

        Jim’s a rock. Can’t rattle the guy. Probably what Mosher finds so irritating.

      • Steven Mosher

        every opportunity?
        hardly.
        I’d say 7 out of 10 times here, and 1 out of 50 times on WUWT.

        Stick to exagerating about your past. you suck when it comes to observing the
        present.

        Write that down.

    • Don’t forget about me. I think Pope does a good Chance the Gardener impersonation.

      If you Water it, it will Grow.

  118. Pingback: The Compliance of Science | OMSJ

  119. Rog, if you have not got Steyn’s email address yet, I posted it way above.

    Didn’t realise that this thread was so long.

    PS, your comment about a certain poster’s Community Service cracked me up!

    • Thanks Johanna, I’ll email him about Ron Oxburgh’s appearances in the climategate emails and attach a copy of Mann’s libelous tweet about me. I may yet decide to make use of it myself. I’ve seen enough of bullying from this charlatan.

  120. Barrow gives too much trust to Climate Models.
    If 85% of the models say you are going to have problems and the 85% do not match what has been measured, you don’t pay attention to the model output, you look to fix the models so they don’t conflict with real data.

  121. I’m particularly fond of this one. It reminds me of Obama for some reason.

    @kim | February 23, 2014 at 8:15 pm |

    When all you have is a buzzsaw, every nail is a problem.

  122. thisisnotgoodtogo

    Let’s be kind to Mr. Mann.
    He’s laurylated, his hystery concysts of being nothing less than a pilar – a real pilar of climate science.
    And now big meanie McIntyre has done a 4th attempt at lancing.
    It’s enough to make the blood boil.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Look at what McIntyre is saying now about Mr Mann’s dearest claims!

      He’s saying that Mr. Mann’s claim of agreement in the press about his exonerations is again not supported, even if Mann considers CRU scientists to be a proxy for Michael Mann, or that they really meant “Michael Mann” when they said “Phil Jones”.
      Here!
      “Mann’s pleadings placed great importance on reports of the investigations in international media. However, CRU and Jones received savage coverage in contemporary articles”.
      “For example, Quentin Letts in the Daily Mail:
      Professor Acton’s left eyebrow started doing a little jiggle of its own. His eyeballs bulged with admiration for the climate-change supremo. His lips were pulled so wide in wonderment they must nearly have split down the seams like banana skins. Others, watching the tremulous Professor Jones, will have been less impressed. He may be right about man-made climate change. But you do rather hope that politicians sought second, third, even 20th opinions before swallowing his theories and trying to change the world’s industrial output.”

      Simon Carr in The Independent:
      His defence was a bit unscientific too: “I’ve obviously written some very awful emails,” followed by a wry smile. But the committee declined to be charmed. Why wouldn’t he release the codes? “Because we had an awful lot of work invested in it.”

      Yes, by the sound of it there was considerable data smoothing and oiling and homogenising and substituting and standardising… I don’t know much about statistics but I know what I like. And when a scientist says: “We couldn’t keep the original data, only the added-value data,” all sorts of sirens and alarms go off.

      Simon Hoggart in The Guardian:

      The sight of another scientist being skewered makes for painful viewing. Whatever your view on man-made global warming, you had to feel sorry for Professor Phil Jones, the man behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia

      Anne Treneman in The Times:

      Professor Jones’s face was immobile, eyes steady behind wire specs. He seemed, like a dead calm sea, almost glassy. And, like ships in the Bermuda Triangle, questions that got near him just seemed to disappear.

      Only once did he admit to anything and that was about an e-mail. “Uh. Yes. I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” he murmured.

      Oh dear. It seems the planet is in more trouble than I thought. ”

      Dear readers, what next from the insufferable McIntyre?

    • That’s a lot of words to avoid just one simple point:

      Which is that nothing you posted justified libelous accusations of fraud against Mann

      Try again

  123. There is a 100% chance that the 97% is 20% right.

  124. Robert I Ellison

    ‘Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.’

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

    If we move beyond the limits of initialized models – the behavior of the climate regimes suggests cool temps in the Pacific and North Atlantic over 2 to 4 decades from the nonlinear climate shift in 1998/2001.

    This topic has brought the climate crazies out in force to defend the Dear Leader. The above quote from Keenlyside et al (2008) is unambiguous. There is abundant science on decadal variability and the likely influence on decadal surface temperature. The failure to acknowledge this shows one thing clearly – the inability of climate crazies to challenge their memes – the many and varied post hoc rationalizations around the hiatus – the forlorn hope that a 2014 El Niño will turn it around and save the day for them. Linked with narratives of climate catastrophe and the severe philosophy of human and economic limits – it undermines any reasonable moves to practical and pragmatic mitigation in a world much wearied of the slow motion apocalypse and accompanying green/socialist overreach. For another generation at least.

    Yet the science of synchronized climate chaos suggests very real risks of abrupt and nonlinear change – in as little as 10 years – from exponentially increasing emissions as economies grow this century. So in terms of policy response – the worst of all possible outcomes seems fairly likely.

    We could talk about a multi-gas mitigation strategy that includes development and population considerations and building societal resilience to whatever weather flings at us. But that would require being able to walk and chew gum.

    Just as an aside – Judy has written about decadal variability, nonlinear climate dynamics and mitigation and resilience strategies. A nuanced position founded on science and feasible policy options. This of course gives carte blanche for climate crazies to parade their poorly informed opinions, to lecture on their simplistic memes, to insult and berate.


    • Yet the science of synchronized climate chaos suggests very real risks of abrupt and nonlinear change – in as little as 10 years – from exponentially increasing emissions as economies grow this century. So in terms of policy response – the worst of all possible outcomes seems fairly likely.

      Massive Climate Alarmism from an Aussie.

      Who will now deny that he actually said this.

    • Robert I Ellison

      ‘The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic–and often extreme–shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less. The causes of abrupt climate changes have not been clearly established, but the triggering of events is likely to be the result of multiple natural processes.

      Abrupt climate changes of the magnitude seen in the past would have far-reaching implications for human society and ecosystems, including major impacts on energy consumption and water supply demands. Could such a change happen again? Are human activities exacerbating the likelihood of abrupt climate change?…

      Large, abrupt climate changes have affected hemispheric to global regions repeatedly, as shown by numerous paleoclimate records (Broecker, 1995, 1997). Changes of up to 16°C and a factor of 2 in precipitation have occurred in some places in periods as short as decades to years (Alley and Clark, 1999; Lang et al., 1999). However, before the 1990s, the dominant view of past climate change emphasized the slow, gradual swings of the ice ages tied to features of the earth’s orbit over tens of millennia or the 100-million-year changes occurring with continental drift. But unequivocal geologic evidence pieced together over the last few decades shows that climate can change abruptly, and this has forced a reexamination of climate instability and feedback processes (NRC, 1998). Just as occasional floods punctuate the peace of river towns and occasional earthquakes shake usually quiet regions near active faults, abrupt changes punctuate the sweep of climate history.’ http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10136

      Seriously? Which bit of climate catastrophist – in the sense of Rene Thom – did he not understand? Does he not read anything I post? Has this finally penetrated? Is it the end of the world as we know it? Has there been a shift in webby consciousness?

      Stay tuned.

    • Good to see that Bob has great faith in the high accuracy of climate proxies.

    • Robert I Ellison

      Actually – let’s consider paleoclimate.

      ‘Now imagine that you have never seen the device and that it is hidden in a box in a dark room. You have no knowledge of the hand that occasionally sets things in motion, and you are trying to figure out the system’s behavior on the basis of some old 78-rpm recordings of the muffled sounds made by the device. Plus, the recordings are badly scratched, so some of what was recorded is lost or garbled beyond recognition. If you can imagine this, you have some appreciation of the difficulties of paleoclimate research and of predicting the results of abrupt changes in the climate system.’ op. eit.

      But ENSO for instance has quite good Holocene spanning proxies. And of course modern climate shifts are far more certain.

      e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1

      What we have instead of comprehension from Michael – that is the hard biyt obviously – instead is the epitome of the poorly informed noisily insulting, berating and belittling. It is just another pointless distraction from the reality of climate and climate policy. Ultimately – he is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

    • Whatcha wanna do, is look at paleoclimate cross-eyed.
      ================

    • some people can’t take a complment.

    • BobbIE is alarmed that increasing levels of GHGs will cause a tipping point. This is worse than the crowd who sees a 3C for an ECS.

    • Robert I Ellison

      As Swanson et al (2009) say – a vigourous interdecadal variability implies a dynamic sensitivity to changing conditions.

      The essential problem remains – the likelihood of non warming for decades and dynamic sensitivity.

      What follows from that is pretty damn obvious. Except to climate crazies.

  125. Pingback: BREAKING – Warning to Michael Mann: apologise for your lie or risk facing from me what you’ve done to Steyn | Climatism

  126. This childish insistence on using “Ms.” reminds me of this infamous bit of naming-calling by sports talk show host Jim Rome, who is a towering figure of maturity by comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQVHI_8

    For the record, anyone with a Ph.D. gets called “Prof.” or “Dr.” — for life. And it’s like that in other areas of society: I know someone who once held a presidential appointment and thus was “The Hon. So-and-so,” and a decade later he still has the right to be called that.

    • I was once called “That big daft one!” I’m sure it has applied for life, but it fell out of usage.

    • Here’s a link. I don’t use this blog because of the name given by WordPress, which I have not yet managed to sort out:

      http://climateetc.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/that-big-daft-one/

    • davideisenstadt

      I have a number of PhDs in the family…they generally dont use the term “Dr” in social situations…However, I agree, this isnt a social situation, and the honorific is appropriate here.

      • David Springer

        If it was no title, such as “Curry”, I wouldn’t have a complaint. It’s purposely using an incorrect title. For instance it’s okay to refer to President Obama as just Obama but it’s not okay to call him Mr. Obama. He’s no longer a mister just as Curry is no longer a Ms. To be consistent I admonished Latimer Alder for calling Mann “Mr. Mann” just as I dinged Elifritz for “Ms. Curry” and yet someone else for Mr. David L. Hagen (Hagen earned a doctorate). There are certainly nitwits with PhDs but they still worked hard enough to earn the title and if you choose to include a title at least make it the right one. Just sayin’.

    • I know a clan in which the medical doctors call one parent, a PhD, the real doctor in the family.
      ==============

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      I thought it was only proper to call the person by the highest title they have.
      Not simply “Doctor”, it’s “Professor”, because Ph.D.s are a dime a dozen compared to Professors.

    • Have to disagree with the title-obsessed here. In my experience no PhDs, in places where it can be assumed that every faculty member has one, use the “Dr.” title socially or on campus. People in these academic settings use “Professor,” in the same way they might use “Coach,” as a form of address and title. Being called “Dr.” is slightly embarrassing and insisting on it connotes either insecurity or an unseemly over-satisfaction in one’s modest accomplishments.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      My take on this, Steve, comes from a convention taught to me which says I am to call a physician named “Smith” as “Dr. Smith” unless he is my own physician, in which case it becomes just “Doctor”.

  127. I’m much more aligned with MS – in politics thru climate, but in observing what they write about people they’re in disagreement with, I can’t help thinking they deserve each other on some level.

  128. Mikey get his bluff called Down Under ..and caves

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/25/blustering-bully-backs-off.html

    He really is a very foolish little Mann.

    • Snarkington Barffest

      How about Michael Mann apologizing for calling Dr. Curry “anti-science” or a “climate denier.”

      Er … because it’s true?

    • @Snarkington Barffest

      1. How would you define ‘anti-science’? And what evidence would you present to show that Professor Curry is indeed ‘anti-science’?

      2. How would you define a ‘climate denier’? And what evidence would you present to show that Professor Curry is indeed ‘a climate denier’?

    • When science collides with anti-science they annihilate and release huge numbers of gamma memes, which in turn collide with surrounding belief structures to create a secondary shower of infrared passions. No useful light is shed on anything during this process.

  129. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    BREAKING NEWS

    Mann jumps into “hot water”; …
      … immediately jumps out!

    Faux-conservative forums …
      … not so smart as Mann!

    •  Michael Mann posts a gratuitously abusive “tweet” … and immediately acknowledges and apologizes for his mistake

    •  The National Review (NI), the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and Heatland Institute (HI) systematically embrace “Sandusky”-style and “Kaczinski”-style personal attacks … and apologize *NEVER*.

    The World Wonders  How is it that Michael Mann has the fortitude to publicly acknowledge mistakes and apologize for them … whereas faux-conservative forums (NI/CEI/HI) *INSIST* upon embracing a toxic brew of ideology-first ignorance and gratuitous personal abuse … to the grievous harm of 21st century conservatism?

    Why the striking difference between Mann’s immediate apology, versus faux-conservatism’s unremitting and unrepentant ignorance and abuse?

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan of more of something from a horse:

      How is it that Michael Mann has the fortitude to publicly acknowledge mistakes and apologize for them …

      Could the threat of a lawsuit from Bolt have anything to do with this new found fortitude?

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Heartland/Joe Bast is unrepentant “We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”

      Does the ‘realist’ message of the Heartland Institute / National Review / Competitive Enterprise Institute / FreedomWatch amount to:

      (1)  ignorant faux-science, and

      (2)  egregious personal abuse, and

      (3)  relentless astro-turfing on public forums?

      The world wonders, eh Climate Etc readers.

      Well actually, most folks on Climate Etc *DO* understand the sustained denialist strategy of the HI/NR/CEI/FW coalition … ain’t that right?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • You really pick the winners, Michael Mann and James Hansen. How about Michael Mann apologizing for calling Dr. Curry “anti-science” or a “climate denier.” It’s funny how the threat of a lawsuit convinced Mann to apologize. Actually, as poor as Hansen’s track record has been with his predictions, he has never stooped to the hateful depths that Mann has.

    • immediately you mean AFTER been called out by the person he insulted?
      Meanwhile he carries on freely insulting others while making claims he cannot support . Has for ‘unremitting and unrepentant ignorance and abuse?’ people like Mann are masters of it , calls for jail time for ‘thought crimes ‘ demands for people to lose their jobs for failing to fully support ‘the cause ‘ and daily a diet of insults and smears against AGW sceptics are just the norm for the course. The idea the moral high ground is taken by AGW proponents is both hilarious and tragic as its undermined ever day by the actions of those same people.

    • Fan,

      I see those glasses you wear allow you to view just about anything in whatever light you choose, regardless of any relationship with fact.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      KNR wonders: who’s got “the moral high ground”?

      That is a good question, KNR!

      NOT  Michael Mann: who insults folks, then apologizes.

      NOT  the Heartland Institute / National Review / Competitive Enterprise Institute / FreedomWatch who insult folks, then DON’T apologize.

      Conclusion  James Hansen and colleagues hold the climate-change high-ground, scientifically, morally, and civilly … `cuz Hansen deprecates coal-trains, not individual people!

      Corollary  This guy thinks well of this gal … `cuz she’s invited to be a keynote speaker at the Pontifical Academy’s global workshop Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility, coming in May 2014. Good!

      It’s Obvious  That we can all of us take high-ground lessons in science, morality, and civility from James Hansen, Pope Francis, and Naomi Oreskes!

      As for Michael Mann … he’s not much of a role model.

      As for the Heartland Institute / National Review / Competitive Enterprise Institute / FreedomWatch … they’re even worse as role models.

      That’s scientific, moral, and civil common sense, right Climate Etc laddies and lassies!?!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • She’s got tobacco smoke on the brain. I liked her deft proposal, fix it now locally or fix it later globally. Gawd, please don’t put her in charge.
      ==============

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Big Carbon RICO indictments?

      Just like Big Tobacco RICO indictments?

      RICO Convictions of Major
      Tobacco Companies Affirmed

      In a punishing affirmance, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 92-page per curiam opinion upholding the judgment issued by D.C. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler in August 2006, in which she found eleven of America’s major Tobacco Companies and related entities guilty of nearly 150 counts of mail and wire fraud in a continuing “pattern of racketeering activity” with the “specific intent to defraud” under the Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

      You read about it on HotWhopper: We don’t want a RICO investigation sez WUWT. What are they afraid of? … and even earlier, right here on Climate Etc.

      Hmmmm … so what *IS* Big Carbon / WUWT / Heartland Institute / National Review / Competitive Enterprise Institute / FreedomWatch so almighty afraid of?

      The world wonders!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

  130. If Muir Russell inquiry “exonerated” Mann even know they never consider reviewing his work and did not mention any exoneration of him. Did this review also “exonerated” all climate scientists by some form of magic even if it never consider them or just those that despite the evidenced claimed it does ?

  131. This is way down the bottom of a long thread and comes from a science layman so it probably doesn’t count for much amongst the many illuminaries that post here.

    From Judith’s comments above;

    “no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus. I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me”

    To myself as a layman that is one of the saddest comments about present day climate science and science generally that I have seen for a long time.

    Somebody I regard as having integrity, honesty and a strong sense of the ethics which is required to practice true science is castigated, denigrated and ignored and deliberately passed over for promotion in the science and university industry purely because they refuse to kowtow to a particular and currently fashionable and fairly paranoic scientific ideology.
    It is a very sad reflection and severe condemnation of today’s scientists and the science industry generally that a situation is now allowed to exist in science where the complete lack of morality, ethics, integrity and honesty accompanied by a deep set bigotry against along with a deliberate discrimination has been put in place by climate catastrophe scientists and has become an accepted practice that is directed against any who dare question the “consensus” climate science,
    These despicable attributes on the part of the climate science alarmist industry have become the defining hallmarks of the climate catastrophe science of today.
    Yet nowhere do we see the rest of the science disciplines industry taking climate science to task and forcing the retraction of such attitudes before the cancer that is now climate consensus science spreads and starts destroying the rest of science.

  132. I wonder if Judith will update the post to acknowldege that there is no ‘doctored quote’ from Michael Mann – it’s just a simple misattribution of the source.

    Given the prominence that she has given these accusation – incorrect ones – it might be appropriate, heck even ethical, to do so.

    • Michael -

      I haven’t been following all the comments. How do you come to that conclusion?

    • Joshua,

      Here’s the quote in Mann’s legal docs;
      “the scientists’ rigour and honesty are not in doubt.”

      This what the report actually said;
      “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”

      OMG!!!!!! Fraud-gate!

      The slightly mangled quote was on-line at SkS, but they referenced the original report.

      Mann’s doc, on the very next page, correctly quotes and cites this;
      “the rigour and honesty of the scientists are not in doubt” (Govt response to the report),
      which is closer to the first quote, which does make me wonder if they meant to refer to it and not the Muir report.

      Anyway, to call this a storm-in-a-teacup would be a massive beat-up,but Judith saw fit to include several lengthy quotes attacking Mann and multiple links, all over nothing.

    • Michael,

      I have refrained from commenting on your misuse and abuse of the English language, on the grounds that you were probably only pretending to be ignorant.

      May I respectfully suggest that you have spelled “acknowledge” incorrectly, and that “these accusations” is incorrect usage. I apologise if you are dyslexic, aphasic, or merely poorly educated.

      I do not pretend to be expert in English expression, but my skills in this area obviously outweigh yours. If you need help with spelling, or any any other facet of English expression, I will of course be glad to assist.

      Live well and prosper,

      Mike Flynn.

    • Mike,

      Thanks for always having your eye on the real issues.

    • Yes, first the ‘pile-on’, then when it’s shown to be over-hyped BS – crickets.

      Typical.

      Mybe thats why many climate scientists hold ‘skeptics’ in the same regard you’d hold for something unpleasant and stinking that you might find on the sole of your shoe after a walk in the park.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      FANNY in typical great ignorance, sez

      “As for Michael Mann … he’s not much of a role model.” correctly,
      but forgets..

      that FANNY, in typical Fanny mode, mad claims about Marott et al

      and THOSE BOYS expressed how MANN IS THEIR ROLE MODE, and it shows in the perverse research work too.

  133. Pingback: The many misrepresentations of Mann | The View From Here

  134. thisisnotgoodtogo

    Michael, you say,

    ” Michael | February 25, 2014 at 6:14 pm |

    Joshua,

    Here’s the quote in Mann’s legal docs;
    “the scientists’ rigour and honesty are not in doubt.”

    This what the report actually said;
    “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”

    OMG!!!!!! Fraud-gate!’

    The ting is that the passage refers to the CRU, but Mann is trying to say it refers to him by clipping out the relevant context where CRU is mentioned.
    It’s about CRU, not Michael Mann

    Not Michael Mann.

    He did not get exonerated by it.

    Understand ?

    He’s making a false claim

    • Wrong.

      The defendants suggested that one the UEA reports made a cirtical finding againt Mann – it didn’t, and Mann’s response refers to the report to make this clear.

      Mann is exonerated from the claim, made falsely by the defendants.

      Do you get it now? Yes, there is a false claim – by the defendants.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “The defendants suggested that one the UEA reports made a cirtical finding againt Mann – it didn’t, and Mann’s response refers to the report to make this clear.

      Mann is exonerated from the claim, made falsely by the defendants.

      Do you get it now? Yes, there is a false claim – by the defendants.”

      You say this without a shred of evidence, Michael. Produce the quotes.

      What we have is Mann making false claims to the court, whether to counter a defendant claim or otherwise, his claims are proven false – in this case false both as standalone and false as response.

    • Go look up thread.

      Lati made the exact same request earlier – I provided them….and the link and the page ref.

      Only Lati crickets followed.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael, you made the claim in response to me. The least you could do is find your post and paste it here.
      Otherwise, you’re still totally EMPTY.

    • Why do I have to spoon feed you lot??

      Aren’t you SKEPTICS?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael, you have not provided the evidence to support your claim. It’s not spoon feeding, supporting your own claim.
      And it really is of no concern if you choose NOT to support your claims.
      We already know they’re rubbish.

  135. Pingback: Michael Mann: Harper's War on Science

  136. thisisnotgoodtogo

    While it’s quite true that SO FAR, in the ClimateAudit investigations of the “exonerations” claimed by Michael Mann. the enquiries and reports DO NOT indict Mann (they did not even attempt to investigate Mann), Mann is making an ENTIRELY FALSE REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT in altering texts, and cutting out the context of passages to claim exoneration by these same investigations and reports.

    • Yep. I’d think that any judge would take a fairly dim view of these antics.

      I guess that they tend not to like submissions that so transparently assume that the bench is far less clever than the submitter and won’t notice their clumsy legerdemain.

      And, the ill-founded theme that ‘Mike Mann is the cleverest boy in class and woe shall betide anyone who so much as questions him or his acolytes’ is a leitmotif running through much of recent climate controversy.

    • In fairness to Mann, I think a lot of this is the result of coercion by his handlers.

      Andrew

    • > While it’s quite true that SO FAR, in the ClimateAudit investigations of the “exonerations” claimed by Michael Mann. the enquiries and reports DO NOT indict Mann (they did not even attempt to investigate Mann), [...]

      Actually, some inquiries did investigate Mike.

      It is quite possible that the Auditor’s investigations eventually indict Mike. It is under the realm of possibilities that the Auditor one day has the legal power to do so. Let the readers will judge if that’s plausible.

      This possibility leads to the question what kind of audit we are witnessing. Let be noted that the Auditor consulted with Steyn’s team and has expressed willingness to become a paid consultatnt for Steyn. Let also be noted that the Auditor indicated this only once, in a Postscript that from a post that led to another inquiry where some interest regarding “homoerotic regalia” has been shown.

    • Funny how the funny, clever, cool guys are generally skeptics. The thin skinned, paranoid Captain Queeg types tend to be the warmists. I’ve also noticed that warmist scientists tend to be terrible writers. Mann’s grasp of the English language is tenuous at best. Of course, he’s also a major loon.

      All you CLimate Etc. warmists, wouldn’t you rather Michael Mann go away? Do you think he’s hurting or helping?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “In fairness to Mann, I think a lot of this is the result of coercion by his handlers.”

      Nobody was coercing Mann when he made the same claims before even going to court!

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Maybe fairness for Mann would allow that he may be now convinced that his previous years of lying about it has led him to now believe that his lies were truth.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo,

      Is this ‘doctored quote’ still the crime of the century?

      The “doctored quote”;
      “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”
      And the original;
      “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”.

      Shocking, truly shocking. I’m clutching my pearls!

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael, ever desperate, says:

      “Is this ‘doctored quote’ still the crime of the century?

      The “doctored quote”;
      “the scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt.”
      And the original;
      “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”.

      Shocking, truly shocking. I’m clutching my pearls!”

      Dear desperate,
      The doctoring is in the removal of text that explains who is being talked about. Clue: it was not talking about Mann, but he misrepresented to the court that it was.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Mann performed a contextomy for the court to be misled:

      wiki on contextomy

      “As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.”

    • thisisnogoodtogo,

      I’m continually surprised by people making strident claims about Michael Mann who clearly have not bothered to read the orginal docs.

      The “doctored quote” (it’s not) appeared under the heading “University of East Anglia” and talked only about investigations into CRU.

      The quote you are so exercised about and are so certain is removed from it’s context is referenced. What is the ref?;

      Sir Muir Russell, et al., “The Independent Climate Change Emails Review”(July 2010)

      On what bizarro planet would the heading – “UEA”, the discussion – CRU, and the ref (the CRU review) make any one think for even a nanosecond that the people writing this have tried to hide that it was referring to anything other than the CRU???

      You’re embarrassing yourself.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael now says:

      “The quote you are so exercised about and are so certain is removed from it’s context is referenced. What is the ref?;”

      Reference to CRU, as has been explained over and over to you.

      Michael goes on, though:

      “Sir Muir Russell, et al., “The Independent Climate Change Emails Review”(July 2010)

      On what bizarro planet would the heading – “UEA”, the discussion – CRU, and the ref (the CRU review) make any one think for even a nanosecond that the people writing this have tried to hide that it was referring to anything other than the CRU???”

      Why, the removal of text referring to CRU scientists as “the scientists” and offering it as an exoneration of Michael Mann – obviously!

    • Let me get this right.

      You’re reading this page of the document, the title is UEA, it’s talking about the investigation into scientists only working at CRU – Michael Mann has never worked there – it then mentions the result of the investigation into CRU, and gives a short quote from the CRU report (referenced) – and you think the quote is directly about Michael Mann???

      You are a sad indictment of the education system.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      If it’s listed under exonerations of Michael Mann, and the reference to who the quote is talking about is removed, then it’s obviously an attempt to deceive – because these supposedly are reports exonerating Michel Mann!

    • It’s easy enough for the average juror to understand even over the din of the Plaintiff’s attorney banging on the table.
      ===================

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      “Let me get this right.

      You’re reading this page of the document, the title is UEA, it’s talking about the investigation into scientists only working at CRU – Michael Mann has never worked there – it then mentions the result of the investigation into CRU, and gives a short quote from the CRU report (referenced) – and you think the quote is directly about Michael Mann??? ”

      It was you, Michael, who unfortunately for your credibility, tried to say that it is justifiably to be considered exoneration of Michael Mann.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo,

      You’re clearly struggling here so I’ll make it easy for you.

      Here’s the paragraph leading up to the quote;

      “University of East Anglia.
      In April 2010, the University of East Anglia convened an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh.The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic ResearchUnit”. Three months later, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report, prepared under the oversight of Sir Muir Russell. The report examined whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that…”

      Are you really still confused?????

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael, it is you, not me, who stated

      “Have you considered the following?; the collective “all…investigations” then refers to the compliation of findings, listed together, ie a summary, rather than suggesting every investigation made the same group of findings:”

      So it’s you who believes that it referred to Mann.

    • Man, you are totally lost.

      The real relevance of the UEA section is the subsequent paragraph (the first one that I’ve just spoon-fed you is primarily for context – the not-doctored quote isn’t even important). The defendants suggested that this same UAE report found that Mann’s HS graph was misleading. Mann’s response referenced the UEA report to show that it is not Mann who is criticised as misleading, but a WMO report graphic.

      Got it all clear now?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael tries again:

      “The real relevance of the UEA section is the subsequent paragraph (the first one that I’ve just spoon-fed you is primarily for context – the not-doctored quote isn’t even important). The defendants suggested that this same UAE report found that Mann’s HS graph was misleading. Mann’s response referenced the UEA report to show that it is not Mann who is criticised as misleading, but a WMO report graphic.”

      The why is it listed under exonerations of Michael Mann when it is not ?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Further, Mann was intimately involved with that misleading WMO 99 production.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Email from Mann on the WMO hockey stick production

      “Thanks for sending that along. The text looks good, and I agree w/
      everything that is said. I think its a strong but defensible statement, and
      will help to bolster the claims to be made in IPCC. The ’99 numbers are
      very interesting, and should help thwart the dubious claims sometimes made that El Nino is the sole culprit in the anomalous recent warmth.

      Just for comparison to what Tim is producing, I’m attaching the plot you
      may remember that we (actually, the UK Met Office staff) prepared for the
      final version of the IPCC chapter 2 draft (in pdf format). To refresh your
      memory, we used the ’61-90 base period for the absolute anomaly scale, but we aligned the series based on an earlier (’31-60) interval of the
      instrumental record, which pre-dates (largely) the recent decline in the
      Briffa et al series. I think this leads to a similar picture, but if you
      think there are any significant discrepancies w/ what Tim is preparing, we
      should discuss.”

      Michael, you’re struck out again.

    • Lord give me patience.

      Perhaps a distinction will help you to digest the information.

      Mostly we are expecting an ‘active’ exoneration – accusation of X,there’s an inquiry, and no X is found. Exoneration. Official inquiries produce exonerations (or not),and that’s how it’s often viewed, but any act of proving an allegation to be baseless is also an exoneration. The assumption of exlusively the former type seems to be the basis for much of concern here.

      Mann’s response uses the existing UEA report to demonstrate that the defendants suggestion that the UEA report concludes the HS graph is misleding (implying Mann was misleading) is not correct.
      Mann’s response refers to the relevant pages of the report (P 69-70) where it is quite clear that the report is critical of how the WMO used a graphic (their own, not MM’s) of the HS. Hence, there is no suggestion in the UEA report that in any way implicates Michael Mann in misleading use of the HS graph.

      That, also, is an exoneration.

      Clear enough?

      Are you starting to get the feeling you’ve been manipulated by people only telling part of the story and leaving important parts out?

      You should.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael, clearly delusional, says:

      “Mostly we are expecting an ‘active’ exoneration – accusation of X,there’s an inquiry, and no X is found. Exoneration. Official inquiries produce exonerations (or not),and that’s how it’s often viewed, but any act of proving an allegation to be baseless is also an exoneration. The assumption of exlusively the former type seems to be the basis for much of concern here.

      Mann’s response uses the existing UEA report to demonstrate that the defendants suggestion that the UEA report concludes the HS graph is misleding (implying Mann was misleading) is not correct.
      Mann’s response refers to the relevant pages of the report (P 69-70) where it is quite clear that the report is critical of how the WMO used a graphic (their own, not MM’s) of the HS. Hence, there is no suggestion in the UEA report that in any way implicates Michael Mann in misleading use of the HS graph.”

      1/ Even you admit that the UEA report did not exonerate Mann – though it was presented as if it had done so, under “exonerations of MM”

      2/ Now you say that pointing out the criticism is of the WMO graph exonerated Michael Mann from being associated with the criticism leveled at the WMO graph – yet Michael Mann was party to the making of that misleading graph.

      You’re totally struck out, Michael

    • Wow,

      You’re an obessional/delusional type.

      “Intimately involved” !- the writers of the report sent him a copy of the text and asked him what he thought!!

      The front page picture -a composite of 3 studies put togtther by WMO.

      The obsession with Michael Mann is weird.

      I think the pathological theory is gaining strength by the day.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael, delusional, writes:

      ““Intimately involved” !- the writers of the report sent him a copy of the text and asked him what he thought!!”

      Not just that.
      He approved very heartily of what was going on (which EUA report found misleading), and he was asked for input, and he gave it. He was advised, gave advice, was re-reported to, and agreed. He was intimately involved.

      The front page picture -a composite of 3 studies put togtther by WMO.
      Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
      Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
      first thing tomorrow.
      I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
      to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
      1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
      land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
      N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
      for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
      data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
      Thanks for the comments, Ray.

      Cheers
      Phil”

    • “Even you admit that the UEA report did not exonerate Mann…” -this

      My, you are a sad case.

      I just explained to you that the narrow inquiry style exoneration is just that -narrow and only a specific type.

      Exoneration is the clearance from an accusation. Plain and simple.

      I can understand the utility of pretending that exoneration only comes from an official inquiry. It lets you say silly things like – “Even you admit that the UEA report did not exonerate Mann”.

      But it’s dishonest, or terribly confused.

      The defendants suggested X about Mann from the UEA report. Mann’s repsonse showed that the report did not conclude X – they used the report to exonerate him from that accusation.
      No ,the people who wrote the UEA report did not exonerate Michael Mann – but they were never investigating him, so why would they.

      Any more silly word games??

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Not to leave out mention that the basis for Phil’s WMO production work was “Mike’s trick”.

      Michael, clearly a delusion-ridden fan.

    • Really, is that it??

      The people putting the report together asked him for feedback and he gives it.

      Pathological.

      Get a hobby.

    • Yes, “Phil’s production”.

      See what happens when let the obsession go for just a second?

      You can be objective and rational.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Phil decided to use Mikes trick as the basis for putting together a graph that was considered misleading.

      He consulted Mike several times on how best to do this, giving all the particulars. Mike wrote back giving particular on how best to do this. Back and forth, consultations about Mike’s trick, with approval and advice.
      Mike was intimately involved. Phil was attempting to emulate Mike’s trick for what was eventually seen as a misleading effort.

      Some exoneration, either wide or narrow!

    • > Mike was intimately involved [...]

      In a fraud, your Thisness?

      What you just did, btw, was to substantiate the relevance of invoking the inquiries of the CRU scientists in Mike’s memo.

      You might as well go read Lord Frijoles on three concepts related to exoneration at Steve’s.

      Notice how the Auditor’s Voice-of-God response dodges Lord Frijoles’ point.

    • tintg-

      Mike’s trick for what was eventually seen as a misleading effort.

      That’s funny because I thought that “the issue” was whether there is any basis for an accusation of fraud?

      Not sure where I got that impression.

      Of course, for some the issue is homoeroticism. I wonder why some folks are so interested in that issue? What do you think the reason might be, tintg?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      From His Willardness:

      ” ‘Mike was intimately involved [...]‘

      In a fraud, your Thisness?”

      In production of a graph said to be misleading, Your Willardness!

      Further from His WIllardness:

      “What you just did, btw, was to substantiate the relevance of invoking the inquiries of the CRU scientists in Mike’s memo.”

      Your Willardness, again, The High Advisors to Your Willardship fail in the carriage of their Sacred Duties.

      Your Willardness,
      Indeed, Your Brightness blinds the mortal, in finding that the CRU inquiries have relevance, but the High Advisors have failed in their Duties through cloying, whispered irrelevancies that may have angered Your Willardness enough to toss the matter to the scribes – whence thereby the scribes overlooked an unauthorized insertion of the High Advisors’ faulty logic into the matter.
      There exists relevance, but any claim to “exoneration” therein by said Mann, is false on the face of it.

    • this,

      See what happens with obsession – you don’ seem to have noticed how very very very far you’ve travelled from the orginal allegation of “fraud” and any demonstration of it, to some pathetic quibble about a graphic produced by someone else in a publivation by another organisation that Mann had some email contact about.

      Astonishing.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael tries again:

      “See what happens with obsession”
      You don’t notice that each reply to you is a reply to your equal “obsessiveness”?

      It applies to me but not to you. :) You’re fun, I can say that much.

      “you don’ seem to have noticed how very very very far you’ve”

      Try again, Michael, Try “we’ve”.

      “travelled from the orginal allegation of “fraud” and any demonstration of it, to some pathetic quibble about a graphic produced by someone else in a publivation by another organisation that Mann had some email contact about.”

      Nope. It’s not about “some contact”. It’s about direct involvement with the graph noted as being misleading, which goes to “trustworthiness”.

      Traveling far and wide to knock down your nonsense – which ranges from incorrect assumption to stinky red herring.

    • Where’s the orginal allegation of Mann’s “fraud” in his research?

      Gone.

      Instead we some twice removed quibble about someone’s elses publication and graph produced by another person.

      Pathological obsession with Michael Mann.

      My quesion – is it something nasty behind all this vilification of Mann?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Michael tries again:

      “Where’s the orginal allegation of Mann’s “fraud” in his research?

      Gone.”

      oh? Where did you see the retraction?

      If you’re talking about me, you’re lying. I never said he committed fraud.

    • Dear Michael,

      This seems to have the right of it when he says “I never said he committed fraud.”

      Our Thisness only compared an investigation to Sandusky’s and connected commented Mike with his social network:

      > Email from Mann on the WMO hockey stick production [...]

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/#comment-467746

      Watch how Thisness’ pea moves here: he connects Mike with his social network right after rejecting the UK inquiries as relevant in an argument about Mike’s exoneration regarding Steyn’s accusation of fraud.

      Move order is important in the Auditor’s game.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      To the Fetid Canker Blossom:
      Pssst.
      reference:
      thisisnotgoodtogo | February 26, 2014 at 8:25 pm |

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Your Willardness,
      Indeed, Your Brightness blinds the mortal, in finding that the CRU inquiries have relevance,

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      His Willardness was truly testing your gull factor, Dear Michael!
      No bean-fed horse could pace my wit.
      Of course I could not lie to My Liege, and so of course I previously said that it has relevance!

      Ho ho, Who plays the fool plays exceedingly well, My Liege!

  137. thisisnotgoodtogo

    Willard says”

    willard (@nevaudit) | February 26, 2014 at 11:57 am |

    ” ‘While it’s quite true that SO FAR, in the ClimateAudit investigations of the “exonerations” claimed by Michael Mann. the enquiries and reports DO NOT indict Mann (they did not even attempt to investigate Mann), [...] ‘

    Actually, some inquiries did investigate Mike.”

    Quite so, Your Willardness.
    However, Mike is making many false statements to the court!

    “24. All of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr. Mann. “

    • Determined stupidity is definitely the way to go here.

      May I offer some help?

      Have you considered the following?; the collective “all…investigations” then refers to the compliation of findings, listed together, ie a summary, rather than suggesting every investigation made the same group of findings.

      I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Doesn’t work for you, Michael, as in the separate instances Mann made false statements. :)

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      If Mann had given a list containing only investigations that actually did investigate and comment on him, then you’d have a toehold, Mr. Desperate.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      If he had given a list that actually concerned himself, then he could have included NAS…but strangely, that was one investigation omitted :)

    • Is this stream-of-consciousness commenting?

    • > All of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr. Mann.

      If that was false, your Thisness, these investigations would have found evidence of fraud, data falsification, &c. by Dr. Mann. Do you have evidence of this, your Thisness?

      You may need to read the blog again.

      ***

      Besides, I duly submit that what matters is the sentence before that one you quote. You know the one about the fact that the defendants knew that no fraud existed.

      Do you have evidence of fraud, your Thisness?

      Many thanks!

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      A question from the Seat of Willard-dom:

      ” ‘All of the above investigations found that there was no evidence of any fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, or misconduct of any kind by Dr. Mann.’

      If that was false, your Thisness, these investigations would have found evidence of fraud, data falsification, &c. by Dr. Mann. Do you have evidence of this, your Thisness?”

      Your Willardness.
      If I may be bold, might I suggest that a good review of logical fallacies be obtained and sent to the High Advisors To Your WiIlardship.

      Since the investigations thus far examined have not concerned said Michael Mann, there lies the fault in this reasoning of The High Advisors of Your Willardship.

      Further, Your Willardness asks:
      “Besides, I duly submit that what matters is the sentence before that one you quote. You know the one about the fact that the defendants knew that no fraud existed.

      Your Willardness,
      Indeed, Your Perspicacity and Wisdom in this matter is effulgent! The matter does indeed hinge on the Defendants knowing certain matters.

      Further:
      “Do you have evidence of fraud, your Thisness?”
      Your Willardness, again, it’s my belief that a good guide to logical fallacies should be at the first opportunity be presented to Your High Advisors for Your Willardship for ardent study and the improvement of faulty arguments they have carelessly thrust forward.
      This, My Willardness, I urge for protection of Your Willardnesses Most High Reputation and Astral Position – which I consider their first and only Most Sacred Duty!

    • > Since the investigations thus far examined have not concerned said Michael Mann [...]

      Nothing so far contradicts the evidence we have that Mann has not committed a fraud. The evidence we have on the table is that inquiries exonerated both Mann and the CRU scientists from charges of fraud etc.

      Do you have evidence that Mike committed a fraud, your Thisness?

      ***

      You know, the Auditor does not always speak of fraud, but when he does, he makes sure to use an analogy, e.g.:

      I’d like to spend a few minutes explaining what my take is on the actual Enron fraud, since many people (IMHO) don’t understand the differences between the fraud and simply losing money and then ruminate a little on data policy.

      http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/09/enron-trial-in-the-news/

      We can wonder if the Auditor told what he thinks about the F-word when he consulted with Steyn’s team, or if he will when they’ll hire him in the future. Perhaps hitting his donate button might even be a way to encourage him to help Steyn pro bono?

      Also, what do you think about Mike being “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science”, your Thisness?

    • Let’s see:

      1. Abused naive data unnaturally, check.

      2. Provided coverage by peers, check.

      3. Behaviour whitewashed by inhouse investigation, check.

      4. Brought funds and fame to institution, check.

      Of course, there are others to whom he could be compared. Jerry Sandusky isn’t the only one to spring forward at the great pigskin of consciousness.
      ==============

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      From The Seat of Willardship”

      “Nothing so far contradicts the evidence we have that Mann has not committed a fraud. The evidence we have on the table is that inquiries exonerated both Mann and the CRU scientists from charges of fraud etc.”

      Your Most High Willardness,
      To properly advise Your WIllardness, I fear I must point out that from said examinations no evidence at all exists that said Mann has not committed fraud.

      “Do you have evidence that Mike committed a fraud, your Thisness?”
      No, Your Willardness.

      “You know, the Auditor does not always speak of fraud, but when he does, he makes sure to use an analogy, e.g.:

      I’d like to spend a few minutes explaining what my take is on the actual Enron fraud, since many people (IMHO) don’t understand the differences between the fraud and simply losing money and then ruminate a little on data policy.

      http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/09/enron-trial-in-the-news/

      We can wonder if the Auditor told what he thinks about the F-word when he consulted with Steyn’s team, or if he will when they’ll hire him in the future. Perhaps hitting his donate button might even be a way to encourage him to help Steyn pro bono?

      Also, what do you think about Mike being “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science”, your Thisness?”

      Your Willardship.
      Said Auditor is careful indeed about using the f-word, and routinely cautions against it’s use, because those without legal training often use the word in a way that differs from the strictly legally-minded use of it.

      Similarly , said Mann, though often touted, and proclaimed by said Mann, to be a professional scientist, denies data manipulation in a manner reminiscent of a layperson’s ignorant ramblings. Data is most often manipulated by necessity, Your Willardness.

      Thus, I recommend immediate dismissal of The High Advisors, and that they be sent to face the dire consequences of Your Willardships well-directed wrath!

      “Also, what do you think about Mike being “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science”, your Thisness?”

      Your Willardness,
      I think the comparison is wrongly directed, and to compare investigation with said Jerry’s treatment by said University might possibly be considered more apt, by many, due to the subsequent arrest and charges pending against the concerned former Head of said Institution with regard to handling of said Jerry the Molester of Children’s offenses and consequent actions taken.

    • Thank you, your Thisness.

      Please remind kim of Jerry Sandusky:

      In 2011, following a two-year grand jury investigation, Sandusky was arrested and charged with 52 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period. He met his molestation victims through The Second Mile, who were children participating in the organization, and several of them testified against Sandusky in his sexual abuse trial. Four of the charges were subsequently dropped. On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 remaining charges. Sandusky was sentenced on October 9, 2012 to 30 to 60 years in prison. On October 18, 2012, Sandusky’s lawyers appealed his conviction in Centre County Court in Pennsylvania. They claim that they did not have enough time to prepare for their client’s case. On October 31, 2012, Sandusky was moved to Pennsylvania’s SCI Greene “supermax” prison to serve his sentence. On January 30, 2013, Pennsylvania Judge John Cleland denied Sandusky’s request for a new trial.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Sandusky

      The Auditor does not always link Mike with Jerry, but when he does, he’s more subtle, e.g.:

      It’s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate “investigation” into Penn State’s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program: [...]

      http://www.climateaudit.org/2011/11/10/penn-state-president-fired/

      It’s so hard even the Auditor may not resist the transposition.

      It is a pity Steyn did not consult the Auditor before he did.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      From The Seat of Willard-dom:

      “Thank you, your Thisness.”

      Your Willardness, Your Kindness is the wind ‘neath mine wings.

      “It’s so hard even the Auditor may not resist the transposition.”
      Difficult indeed not to, as Your Willardness says with The Supreme Enlightenment.

      “It is a pity Steyn did not consult the Auditor before he did.”

      Your Willardness,
      With regret I must now advise the dismissal of whichever of the available wretches have now as temporary fill-ins have been summoned to help carry the Sacred Duties formerly carried by the High Advisors.

      Steyn did not so declare, Your Willardness.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      On Further Advices to The Seat of Willard-dom.

      Your Willardness,
      Of course your Great Mind already encompasses all, but such wretched distractions as provided by the former High Advisors force me to counsel Your WiIlardness as to further revelations since said University investigation of said Mann’s activities.
      One of the statements by said investigatory panels is that said Mann did nothing to directly or indirectly aid in deletion of emails, whereas one respondent did indeed receive from said Mann a request he forwarded from one “Jones”, to delete the emails, and this “Wahl” . after receiving the forwarded request, deleted said emails, contrary to statement by said investigatory panel at the University.

      This, Your Willardship, indicates that said Mann is not the rosy-pink newborn innocent-of-all, portrayed.

    • ‘If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite.’

      H/t WB via AH.
      =========

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Further Advices to The Seat of WIllard-dom:

      Your Willardness,
      Be-cause said University investigation proved false as one of Sandusky’s
      munificent bestowals upon the children, in the one area that is the most obviously easy to investigate to firm conclusion, and be-cause this one investigation is the only “exoneration” available to said Mann, I’m sure that Your Willardness can easily estimate the chance that the investigation was Sandusky investigation-like with regard to only that one detail, and draw suitably proper Wise Inferences therefrom, as to claims of “total exoneration of everything including breathing” for said Mann.
      Your humble servant,
      thisisnotgoodtogo

    • > I’m sure that Your Willardness can easily estimate the chance that the investigation was Sandusky investigation-like with regard to only that one detail, and draw suitably proper Wise Inferences therefrom, as to claims of “total exoneration of everything including breathing” for said Mann.

      I’m not the one who has to estimate or draw, your Thisness, but those who bring up the analogy, including the Auditor, who never estimate or draw anything like this. Whatever estimate or drawing is provided, it does not falsify that Mann and his social network got exonerated. That last claim is enough to consider that Steyn calling Mann a fraud could very well be considered malice. There is no need to prove “total exoneration of everything including breathing”.

      ***

      Also, I duly submit that

      > this one investigation is the only “exoneration” available to said Mann

      is falsified by the EPA’s Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration:

      http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume1.html

      Would you compare these documents to Sandusky’s investigations, your Thisness?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      From from The Seat of Willard-dom:

      “I’m not the one who has to estimate or draw, your Thisness, but those who bring up the analogy, including the Auditor, who never estimate or draw anything like this. Whatever estimate or drawing is provided, it does not falsify that Mann and his social network got exonerated. That last claim is enough to consider that Steyn calling Mann a fraud could very well be considered malice. There is no need to prove “total exoneration of everything including breathing”.

      “Your Willardness,
      Ten billion pardons, My Liege. I wished only not to usurp what I foolishly considered for less than an instant might your passing pleasure some time.

      ” Also, I duly submit that

      > this one investigation is the only “exoneration” available to said Mann

      is falsified by the EPA’s Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration:

      http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions/volume1.html

      Would you compare these documents to Sandusky’s investigations, your Thisness?”

      My Liege, trembling with fear, as I am, my Duty is to tell you the truth: I would.
      The EPA top climate expert also has been imprisoned for massive fraud.

    • > The EPA top climate expert also has been imprisoned for massive fraud.

      You learned nothing from the Auditor’s smearing tenchique, This. Here:

      The Government Response, attached as an exhibit to Mann’s Reply Memorandum, was prepared by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), a department that has been highly committed to climate intervention, as was Chris Huhne, its then Secretary. Huhne is a controversial figure, who subsequently resigned as Secretary when charged with obstruction of justice on an unrelated matter, eventually sentenced to eight months in jail.

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/

      Please reformulate your smear in a way that readers won’t mock when you portray a story of divorce and speed points with a massive fraud.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Yes, Your Willardness,

      “Tis true. He simply claimed to be a CIA agent, and by so doing, didn’t even have to show up for work for years at a time. All along he was drawing more pay than Federal limits allow, to boot, Your Willardness!

      I fear the Rot is deep, deep, deep all the way, Your Willardness.
      The Oh-So Special Agent was hired and excess pay granted by his long-time “Special Friend” who also took a $8000 VIP reduction for a snazzy auto from lobbyists, whilst his boss was drafting the CAFE standards…

      I can’t go on, My Liege!

    • Here’s a reference for your take-home:

      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/climate-change-experts-fraud-was-crime-massive-proportion-say-feds-v21911592

      Here’s a hint: notice the sentence with the quote “absolutely no work”.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      God’s Regent on Earth,
      My Liege,

      I must hide from your wrath, lest we unwittingly reprise a scene from “The Downfall”!

    • > I fear the Rot is deep, deep, deep all the way, [...]

      Your fear is duly noted, but please contain yourself. It sounds like you’re suspecting a lot of people of fraud. If you continue to entertain such thoughts, you’ll make black helicopters nightmares.

      Also note that you’re supposed not to accuse Mike of fraud. While I know we could argue that reality leads to the rot of eternal void, I’m not sure artful license will help you hide the claim you would not wish to make.

      Also bear in mind that you might need to convince a judge, who may have another opinion regarding institutions than a readership nurtured with perpetual infamia.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      His Willardness:

      ” ‘I fear the Rot is deep, deep, deep all the way, [...]‘

      Your fear is duly noted, but please contain yourself. It sounds like you’re suspecting a lot of people of fraud. If you continue to entertain such thoughts, you’ll make black helicopters nightmares.

      Also note that you’re supposed not to accuse Mike of fraud. ”

      Of course not, Your Willardness!

      “While I know we could argue that reality leads to the rot of eternal void, I’m not sure artful license will help you hide the claim you would not wish to make.”

      Then it’s well that no claim was made, Your Willardship, artful or otherwise!

      What I said is what can be seen in the record of the Congressional Hearing, Your Willardship!

    • Go deeper, This: when did Beale start to lie, and who hired him for his “advisor” job?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Your Wilardness,
      A thousand thousand Apologies, my mistake. it was a recommendation, wasn’t it?

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Your WIllardness,

      Who can tell when he started to lie?

    • Let’s hope it is not your fear that prevents you from going deeper and deeper in the what you fear is rotten, This:

      [B]eale had begun his deception when [W] was president, and that McCarthy was the first official to challenge his claims.

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/16/epa-climate-change-expert-cia-fraud

    • Also note the name of the person who signed the letter prefacing this document, This:

      http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18-IG-to-Inhofe.pdf

      Does the Auditor link to the document? A pity, as readers might read:

      In the course of our inquiry, we examined all ofthe 1,073 CRU emails that were posted on the internet (spanning 13 years, from 1996 to 2009), primarily focusing on the 289 emails that
      involved NOAA.

      That contrasts with the Auditor’s “The OIG report stated that it examined all the CG1 dossier, from which it extracted eight emails that concerned NOAA employees”, don’t you think?

    • question: what is the count of mails in GC1
      what is the count of mails in CG2

      Oh I forgot, asking you to count is a recipe for disaster

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Your Willardness,

      I tremble to inform thee of a slight problem in relying on The Guardian as Your new High Advisor.

      ” the Agency promptly referred this matter to our Office of Inspector General.”

      …which contradicts the testimony of the investigator, who claimed the investigation was harmed due to the matter first going to in-house legal, then to Homeland, and finally to his desk…may it please your Willardship.

    • > I tremble to inform thee of a slight problem in relying on The Guardian as Your new High Advisor.

      The first problem being that I don’t rely on The Guardian as my new High Advisor, whatever may be meant by This.

      This may not be able to disprove that Beale had begun his deception when W was president, that McCarthy was the first official to challenge his claims.

      Just like he did with Lord Frijoles’ argument, This evades the simple fact that Beale did not sign the letter to Inhofe, but Todd J. Zinser:

      http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18-IG-to-Inhofe.pdf

    • > asking you to count is a recipe for disaster

      I point at this:

      In our own review of all 1,073 CRU emails, we found eight emails which, in our judgment, warranted further examination to clarify any possible issues involving the scientific integrity of particular NOAA scientists or NOAA’s data.

      And I point to this:

      In addition to the foregoing, we also found two other emails that raised questions, one regarding a 2002 contract NOAA awarded to the CRU, and the second involving actions on the part of two NOAA scientists in 2007.

      http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18-IG-to-Inhofe.pdf

      That is all.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      From The Seat of Willard-dom.

      Your Willardness,

      Please do accept my poor apologies,
      For I knew not what thou doest ! The little puzzle of letters and signifyers you played so well, had me!
      In the matter of when said Beale started to lie, my concern was not that he just started in the more recent administrations, political, political party, or agency-wise, but that Beale was crooked from much earlier!

      Indeed, such a problem would seem well beyond which party reigns.

      No, My Liege, my concern was that he may have started from the get-go as a cheat.

    • thisisnotgoodtogo

      Advices To The Seat Willard-dom:

      May it please Your Willardship,

      I fear that the one known to us as “Mosher” is out to embarrass Your WIllardness, My Liege!

      Therefore will all respect , I humbly ask:
      Would it be better, due to my damnable ignorance and utter failings to advise better, for My Liege to point like a Mawkish Monkey at articles in the likes of Guardian or for that matter, Enquirer, or to secret ourselves from his cunning probe of Your Willardship?

      He’s played a blinder on us, My Liege!

      Away Away!

    • > Would it be better, due to my damnable ignorance and utter failings to advise better, for My Liege to point like a Mawkish Monkey at articles in the likes of Guardian or for that matter, Enquirer, or to secret ourselves from his cunning probe of Your Willardship?

      Perhaps the Washington Post, then:

      Through the years, Beale impressed colleagues. A Minnesota native and the son of a minister, Beale rose through the agency hierarchy, eventually chairing the influential EPA Clean Air Work Group, according to court records.

      He received a “gold medal” public service award from the agency in 1989, not long before President George H.W. Bush signed Clean Air Act amendments that Beale and others had helped develop.

      EPA officials thought so highly of Beale that they gave him retention bonuses to stay, adding 25 percent to his salary, which was $164,000 when he retired from the agency this year. According to prosecutors, Beale was among the government’s highest paid non-elected federal employees.

      Beale’s reputation and responsibilities grew over the next decade. By 2000, he was promoted to senior policy adviser, reporting directly to the assistant administrator in the EPA’s air office.

      In 2000, as Beale would later admit, he recorded entries on his time sheets as “DO Oversight” when he was actually taking time off. Early on, Beale provided no explanation for his time off. That was because nobody asked, according to a defense memo.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/16/files-show-bizarre-ways-bureaucrat-bilked-epa

      The last paragraph might provide an answer to “Who can tell when he started to lie”: those who have read the recorded entries.

      Interestingly, this article refers to Beale as a “bureaucrat”, not a “top climate” something.

    • > Perhaps the Washington Post [...]

      Perhaps the Washington Times too.

  138. Mr Steyn regales us in on the latest in the never-ending saga of Mr Mann’s behaviour. It seems that not everybody – even True Believers – is convinced of his saint-like status

    Excerpts from Michael Liebrich’s twitter:

    ‘The @MichaelEMann who withheld data and conspired to exclude competing authors from journals is no science hero of mine’.

    ‘@MichaelEMann I’ve read #HSCW, #WUWT, #McIntyre and #Climategate emails. I think you were sloppy and unethical. I also think #AGW is re